PDA

View Full Version : Have you ever played in a game that didn't require divine casters to follow a god?



Talakeal
2015-02-05, 07:10 PM
In all of my years playing D&D, I have never run across a DM who will allow you to play a divine caster who doesn't worship a god, and the vast majority of them aren't even aware that it is an option.

Now, for clerics having a god is the default and following a concept or pantheon is more of an "optional" rule, but for paladins, druids, and rangers, not having a god is RAW. Never met a DM who didn't house rule it to not only require that all divine casters have a god, but that rather than following their code of conduct they have to follow their gods (and by extension usually churches) dogma and edicts even when they run contrary to the code of behavior listed in the PHB.

Judging by a lot of alignment threads on the forum it seems pretty common misconception, as in every "does my paladin fall?" thread there is at least one person stating that it depends on the paladin's god.

Is this normal, or have a merely had unusual luck in sample size? Why do people have such an aversion to divine energy sources that are not gods to the point where they won't allow (or in most cases even comprehend) any other option?

goto124
2015-02-05, 07:14 PM
Why not? Divine caster following gods is often pure fluff anyway. Where do they get their power from? Where do wizards get their power from? Does it matter that much?

It's all fluff.

Atanvarno
2015-02-05, 07:23 PM
Oddly enough, so far as I can recall, nobody in my normal playgroup has ever actually played a cleric or paladin that worshiped a specific god, rather than an ideal.

I guess its just a matter of personal prefference?

In a short campaign I once played a cleric who worshiped Communism (If I recall, we decided he could take the domains of community and mind control).
He was on an extended journey, spreading the wonders of a god-free lifestyle. He had a tendency to use Create Food to give away food while trying to convert people.

... that was a really silly campaign. :smallredface:

TheCountAlucard
2015-02-05, 07:26 PM
Depends on what you mean by "divine caster." And "god."

I play Exalted, so I'm gonna say "yes." Many of the player characters in my games have been spellcasters, and while the Unconquered Sun may have blessed their souls with his divine fire, few showed him any particular reverence for it.

Temotei
2015-02-05, 07:30 PM
Deity worship is a personal choice in the games I'm involved in. It matters little and is mostly just a little bit of extra flesh on a character that few will know about or even care about unless it's a plot element/you worship a deity who has actively harmed/helped people in a community.

So regardless of class, deity worship is just a character/player choice.

Solaris
2015-02-05, 07:35 PM
I once had a player make a favored soul who was his own source of divine power. It never saw the table (opted for a half-dragon five-headed hydra instead), but I had no problems with it. While I've yet to make an atheist setting and have the option for them to do the divine link-up, I've never required clerics to have a connection to any particular deities, much less paladins, rangers, or druids.

Talakeal
2015-02-05, 07:38 PM
Depends on what you mean by "divine caster." And "god."

I play Exalted, so I'm gonna say "yes." Many of the player characters in my games have been spellcasters, and while the Unconquered Sun may have blessed their souls with his divine fire, few showed him any particular reverence for it.

I am not familiar enough with Exalted to remember if there actually is "divine magic", although I suppose the Exalted are all ultimately powered by deities.

I am familiar with World of Darkness though, and I know in that you can use True Faith to perform miracles. And, just like D&D, even though the book explicitly says you don't have to follow any particular religion or deity to use True Faith I have yet to find a storyteller who will allow it at the table.

Grek
2015-02-05, 08:38 PM
I've played a Cleric of Communism before. People will definitely let you do this if you ask.

Tragak
2015-02-05, 08:44 PM
There are thousands of gods in a polytheistic setting, some albeit more important than others. If a Cleric believes in a cause (Goodness, Healing, Nature, Travel…) but doesn't follow one of the gods of that cause, then it's not that he follows none of them, it's that he follows all of them :smallwink:

claricorp
2015-02-05, 09:06 PM
In my games its not common but there have been clerics that have an ideal instead of a god.

Svata
2015-02-05, 09:23 PM
Yes, in a game that just wrapped up over on the PbP section of this board. And I've DM'ed a couple (they fell apart, but they still happened).

Jay R
2015-02-05, 09:25 PM
In this context, divine means "from a god". It comes from the Latin adjective "divinus" from the noun "divus" that means "god". As long as my games have a more-or-less medieval European background, yes, of course divine magic has to be divine.

Theoretically, some player might come up with some reason for me to allow a character to have spells of healing, creation of food and magic, etc., that do not come from a god. If so, the character could be played by cleric or druid rules, but he would not be allowed to call the character a "divine caster". That's just illiterate.

Talakeal
2015-02-05, 09:58 PM
In this context, divine means "from a god". It comes from the Latin adjective "divinus" from the noun "divus" that means "god". As long as my games have a more-or-less medieval European background, yes, of course divine magic has to be divine.

Theoretically, some player might come up with some reason for me to allow a character to have spells of healing, creation of food and magic, etc., that do not come from a god. If so, the character could be played by cleric or druid rules, but he would not be allowed to call the character a "divine caster". That's just illiterate.

Does that also mean that if you are running a setting where wizards are common and their magic taught openly they can no longer call themselves arcane?

goto124
2015-02-05, 10:08 PM
Wizards who call themselves arcane will be thwaped upside the head, and godless cleric who call themselves divine will get bird poop on their face. Even when indoors, or deep underground :smalltongue:

Or, it was called arcane back when it was actually arcane, and no one bothered to change the name since. Same could go for 'divine' casters.

LibraryOgre
2015-02-05, 10:22 PM
I've seen few enough games where it's possible; while it's an option in 3.x, most characters took a deity. Some settings made it mandatory (you have to have to have a deity to cast divine spells in FR, for example).

In other editions, it varied; 1e specified that all clerics (including druids) needed a deity. 2e said that they had a deity, but could abstract it to a generic idea of goodness... it's the Priest Handbook that introduced worshiping forces and philosophies, and Planescape that went kinda whole hog on the idea.

Gavran
2015-02-05, 11:18 PM
Never heard it as a requirement, but I may have played where it was and it just didn't come up. I think in most settings it does make sense to worship a specific god (or gods), but I've never once considered not being okay with any alternatives: worshipping an idea, a people, yourself, not having any clue where your power comes from, whatever.

Tengu_temp
2015-02-05, 11:25 PM
A DND player with a cleric who doesn't follow a diety, but an ideal, is almost always a sign of cheap powergaming - cherry-picking the spheres you want, and choosing the power of CoDzilla without wanting any pesky in-character responsibilities or codes of conduct to get in the way. Settings where godless clerics are an established and big part of the world might be an exception, but don't have to be.

Dimers
2015-02-06, 12:33 AM
I've played in settings that were polytheistic or animistic without requiring divine-oriented characters to pick one primary patron. I've played in a couple games where you weren't required to worship anything in particular. When I run games, I tend to let the players help me fill out the pantheon by describing what god they'd like to worship. Lately, I've been leaving deities very distant from the material world, so it doesn't matter whether you choose to worship Someone specific -- they don't really care.

In D&D 3.X, I prefer not to use the highly generic cleric and paladin classes. Those really can't portray the huge variety of full-casting and martial-half-casting mortal servants a god might have. Sorry, but taking the Trickery and War Domains doesn't cut it for my goddess of strategy and spying ... it really needs a completely different chassis. So for selection of granted powers, spells known and class features, I work with the player closely to get something the deity would actually want to make a covenant with.

Cealocanth
2015-02-06, 12:59 AM
I have played and DMed in two seperate campaigns where this was the case. The issue I've seen usually comes at the consequences of giving someone power. One would think that it doesn't matter where a divine caster's spells come from, because they are just going to pick a god that lets them act like they want and go with it anyway, right? I've found that the "your god wouldn't allow you to do that" ruling comes into play more often than would be expected, and here's why:

All characters with an inherent amount of magical ability know that their ability comes at some sort of price. Wizards spend years studying, druids draw their power from nature and have to respect it, sorcerers are playing with dangerous forces that can bite them in the butt, etc. With divine characters, that levy of power comes in the form of "you have to obey these rules, or you will lose your power." Really, it's regardless of wherever the power comes from, a player needs to know that just because they can manipulate divine power doesn't make them a god. This is important because for some reason, some players mistake divine power as an excuse for causing chaos in the group, as opposed to just another power source. Even if you use a system where there is no functional difference between holy energy and arcane bolts, players seem to get it in their minds that divine power = godhood, and I've seen a few players get disruptive and start breaking the game because of this. As a GM, it is very important that you have a means to pull the plug. Even if you enjoy watching chaos erupt from a dysfunctional group, there comes a point that it is time to bring down the hammer, tell the wizard that he is just not powerful enough to move continents, the sorcerer that attempting to blow up that dragon would likely set your blood on fire, and the cleric that their god would not allow them to detonate a magical nuke in the middle of a major city.

However, that doesn't mean that divine power needs a god. Rather, it means that divine power needs a way to levy power just like everything else. If you remove gods, you have to implement something that acts as that price for power. Maybe your divine power comes directly from faith alone, but that also means that if a player loses control of their mind or bites off more than they can chew, then catastrophic events could ensue. Maybe your divine energy is stolen from creatures who have it, and the only way a mortal can gain divine power is by siphoning off an angel and pitting the forces of light against them. Whatever it is, a GM needs a way to reserve power, just to maintain control when that one problem player comes in and tries to ruin everyone else's fun. A system I've seen work quite well is if divine power comes from occult sources, and the caster needs to perform nightly rituals to maintain their powers for the next day. Again, it's not about balance so much as it is about mentality. Tell some players they can invoke the power of the divine, and they will act in a disruptive manner until you let them do that. Tell the same players that they can invoke the power of the divine, but only if they act according to the rules, then the same player will try to find a way around your rules, but at least they will follow them and order is maintained.

goto124
2015-02-06, 01:03 AM
I guess part of the fun of playing a divine caster is being tied to some sort of god. If a player became a cleric or paladin purely for the mechanics, and doesn't like the associated fluff, the DM could handwave it and allow said player to be more like a wizard RP wise. Or disallow it altogether, and ask the player to pick another class.

Beta Centauri
2015-02-06, 01:17 AM
None of the games I run require it, but players of divine characters (and even some divine ones), if there are any in the group, still tend to follow one.

Talakeal
2015-02-06, 01:56 AM
A DND player with a cleric who doesn't follow a diety, but an ideal, is almost always a sign of cheap powergaming - cherry-picking the spheres you want, and choosing the power of CoDzilla without wanting any pesky in-character responsibilities or codes of conduct to get in the way. Settings where godless clerics are an established and big part of the world might be an exception, but don't have to be.


I've seen few enough games where it's possible; while it's an option in 3.x, most characters took a deity. Some settings made it mandatory (you have to have to have a deity to cast divine spells in FR, for example).

In other editions, it varied; 1e specified that all clerics (including druids) needed a deity. 2e said that they had a deity, but could abstract it to a generic idea of goodness... it's the Priest Handbook that introduced worshiping forces and philosophies, and Planescape that went kinda whole hog on the idea.

While I can kind of see this for clerics, iirc rangers, paladins, and maybe druids have t required a god as default in any edition of D&D outisde of forgotten realms.

Also, I am not sure I like the idea of using RP restrictions as a balancing mechanic. For one thing they tend to do it arbitrarilty, for example giving low powered classes like monk and paladin heavy restrictions while putting non on OP classes like wizard. For another, I dont find that having restrictions on behavior helps with RP as it forces me to look at the characters personality and behavior as a cardboard cutout of an archetype rather than a living breathing human with real motivations and character flaws.

saeval
2015-02-06, 02:00 AM
I generally run Dragonlance campaigns, and they tend to take place after the gods left (they come back, leave, come back, make storytelling difficult) and there is a class called Mystic that is generally a divine sorcerer. I generally also allow them to just call the cleric class mystic, if that is what the player wishes. Mystics in dragonlance get their power from basically the planet/themselves/soul energy blah blah. interesting cause then you get things like clerics, who turned into mystics cause their god abandoned them... then: gods back! It brings flowers and finds them in bed with shrubbery healing people without their permission.

Gavran
2015-02-06, 02:03 AM
A DND player with a cleric who doesn't follow a diety, but an ideal, is almost always a sign of cheap powergaming - cherry-picking the spheres you want, and choosing the power of CoDzilla without wanting any pesky in-character responsibilities or codes of conduct to get in the way. Settings where godless clerics are an established and big part of the world might be an exception, but don't have to be.

That is just... an absurd generalization. The editions I play doesn't even have "CoDzilla", and you're crushing dozens of great character concepts with that unchecked scorn. You might as well say "anyone who wants to play a wizard is bent on breaking the game with utter disregard for everyone else." I'd say you're spending too much time on the 3.5 forums if you really believe most players are like that, except I'm pretty sure I've seen you saying you don't play D&D on more than occasion.

Forrestfire
2015-02-06, 02:24 AM
I've never played with a group who did require Clerics to worship a god. :smallconfused:


A DND player with a cleric who doesn't follow a diety, but an ideal, is almost always a sign of cheap powergaming - cherry-picking the spheres you want, and choosing the power of CoDzilla without wanting any pesky in-character responsibilities or codes of conduct to get in the way. Settings where godless clerics are an established and big part of the world might be an exception, but don't have to be.

At least in my experience, even in 3.5, which is where the issue you're discussing existed, Clerics are overall much more fun for the group when they play CoDzilla, or pick their abilities to fit what they want their concept to do, or the like. A Cleric with DMM Persist Divine Power is a fun, versatile melee or ranged combatant. It's also nowhere near what the Cleric's actual power is, so I find the assertion that using the Cleric class to make a passable gish is "cheap powergaming" to be patently absurd. If someone wanted to cheaply powergame, they'd pick a god to worship, and use Planar Ally to get friends to obliviate the need for gishing or fighting in the first place, or later on call their god up on the divination phone to get answers as-needed.

And in the end, why would whether or not they want in-character responsibilities matter? If a player wants to use the Cleric chassis to play someone whose magic is superpowers, or fluffed as some sort of arcane magic training, or bound souls, or whatever, what's there to stop them? Someone taking on fluff responsibilities for their character should be rewarded with fluff benefits. A Cleric who is a priest of a church has access to their records, resources, allies, and the like, in exchange for the responsibilities that job carries. The same would apply to a Wizard or Rogue who is a priest of a church.

LibraryOgre
2015-02-06, 09:12 AM
While I can kind of see this for clerics, iirc rangers, paladins, and maybe druids have t required a god as default in any edition of D&D outisde of forgotten realms.

Did you mean "haven't" instead of "have t"? Sorry if you didn't, but I'm proceeding on the assumption that you did.

As I said, though, 1e required that clerics and druids have deities; it's mentioned in the DMG when discussing spellcasting. It was also a hard requirement in Dragonlance. Dark Sun didn't have deities, though you had to pick a single elemental (or paraelemental or quasi elemental) force to worship, whereas druids were devoted to a particular stretch of land. Birthright, likewise, required that your priests have a deity. Planescape did not (including priests who worshiped themselves, priests who had abstract concepts as their deity, and all sorts of other options), and made explicit another option: Pantheon worship.



Also, I am not sure I like the idea of using RP restrictions as a balancing mechanic. For one thing they tend to do it arbitrarilty, for example giving low powered classes like monk and paladin heavy restrictions while putting non on OP classes like wizard. For another, I dont find that having restrictions on behavior helps with RP as it forces me to look at the characters personality and behavior as a cardboard cutout of an archetype rather than a living breathing human with real motivations and character flaws.

The thing is, the Paladin was not a low-power class for most of it's life. While 3.x severely depowered non-casters (and half-casters) and powered up full casters, a Paladin was pretty darn stout in 1e, and not bad in 2e. The monk likewise lost a lot of power in the transition from 1e to 3.x, because of the changes the game made in combat and magic. Wizards, by comparison, were relatively WEAK in AD&D, because saving throws worked differently, it took them forever to regain spells that they'd cast, and they seldom had a lot of spells or resources to work with (making magic items was a high-level ability, and much more under DM control, and less subject to cheese unless your DM was a Cheddar Monk).

Kalmageddon
2015-02-06, 09:24 AM
I think it's a simple matter of making the character more invested in the setting. Gods and religion in general tend to be integral part of many fantasy worlds, where it's known for a fact that gods do exist and frequently show up to take care of business. So having a divine caster not identifying himself as a servant of one god or another would seem weird, unless it was some kind of atheistic statement, in which case if there is no precedent in the setting nor any good reason to be like that it might just sound like special snowflake syndrome.
And once again, even in settings where the gods may or may not exist, like in Eberron, churches and faiths play a pretty big role. If you just want to play a caster why not pick a wizard? Or anything that doesn't have the "divine" stamp on it, for that matter.

The only exception I could see working is an Oracle or other spontaneous casters that don't really choose to have their powers and might very well be confused or recalcitrant to find out that some higher power is using them for some purpose.

Finally, the fact that a Cleric or some other divine caster can be an atheist always sounded more like an excuse to have the player pick whatever Domains they want instead of selecting from a limited list, instad of it being a roleplay opportunity of any kind. Basically just a little addendum to please those that want to make a custom list of Domains, be them munchkins or just players that are a little picky.

Yora
2015-02-06, 09:30 AM
My setting doesn't really have gods. There are only shamans and they don't really follow the spirits.

GungHo
2015-02-06, 09:31 AM
Yeah, all the time. By default, I don't usually establish pantheons unless someone actually starts asking for one. Usually it's something like the Light or The Dark/The Void, quite similar to something like Warcraft or Star Wars, if for no more reason than establishing a pantheon and keeping it consistent from the DM's angle is a lot of work without much payoff unless someone's actually "seeing" it and I've become creatively lazy as I've aged.

Kalmageddon
2015-02-06, 09:32 AM
My setting doesn't really have gods. There are only shamans and they don't really follow the spirits.

I think that this is just semantics. If they have to follow some kind of supernatural entity in order to have their powers, it doesn't matter if you call them "spirits" or "gods", it's still having to follow some kind of religion in order to cast divine magic.

kaoskonfety
2015-02-06, 09:36 AM
I've treated it as a setting based choice.

Sometime I list out the deities at play start - don't like the options for faith/domain combinations? tough. There is no good god of war and fire, sun and death, travel and knowledge. oh and no gods of luck domain domain at all, I forgot it when creating the setting and its cannon now. If you REALLY want it present in the setting you should get on BECOMING A GOD (its D&D - get on it already).

Other I've edited out the existence of deities as beings and in one case declared you could only be good or evil as a cleric, whichever you chose was one of your domains, pick a second domain.

Sometime I've done utter free form "your power is your faith" - write down you domains, establish what you believe - run with it. Is a god backing you and you just don't know their name? Well SOMETHING answers the commune spell... ask them?

turbo164
2015-02-06, 09:38 AM
There was a thread on this a while back, *searches*

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?302449-Opinions-on-deity-less-Clerics

^That one's past the necro limit, but has some good discussion.

Seto
2015-02-06, 09:57 AM
Now, for clerics having a god is the default and following a concept or pantheon is more of an "optional" rule, but for paladins, druids, and rangers, not having a god is RAW. Never met a DM who didn't house rule it to not only require that all divine casters have a god, but that rather than following their code of conduct they have to follow their gods (and by extension usually churches) dogma and edicts even when they run contrary to the code of behavior listed in the PHB.

Huh. I, for one, have never met a DM who did. I do spontaneously think of Paladins as worshipping a God and carrying out his church's mission, but I do not deem it a strict requirement.

So yes, I'd say it's a matter of you (or/and me) having met a sample of DMs that wasn't representative.

Solaris
2015-02-06, 10:13 AM
Finally, the fact that a Cleric or some other divine caster can be an atheist always sounded more like an excuse to have the player pick whatever Domains they want instead of selecting from a limited list, instad of it being a roleplay opportunity of any kind. Basically just a little addendum to please those that want to make a custom list of Domains, be them munchkins or just players that are a little picky.

Yeah, but if you're playing somewhere like the Forgotten Realms where they have dozens and dozens of deities, you might as well let the player just pick their domains rather than have them pore over the books looking for a deity they actually like.

You're falling into the Stormwind Fallacy here. Just because my cleric worships a deity doesn't mean I'm going to actually RP worshiping that deity. Just because another cleric reveres a cause doesn't mean they're not going to RP that.

Kalmageddon
2015-02-06, 03:11 PM
You're falling into the Stormwind Fallacy here. Just because my cleric worships a deity doesn't mean I'm going to actually RP worshiping that deity. Just because another cleric reveres a cause doesn't mean they're not going to RP that.

It doesn't mean that, nor the opposite. It's possibile either way, which is why munchkins were just one of the possibilities I mentioned. I also simply noted that, as written in the manual, the option of playing an atheistic cleric present itself as merely an afterthought and not a flashed out roleplaying concept.
Please do not be so eager to call in fallacies and other buzzwords when they do not apply at all.

Talakeal
2015-02-06, 04:38 PM
Did you mean "haven't" instead of "have t"? Sorry if you didn't, but I'm proceeding on the assumption that you did.

As I said, though, 1e required that clerics and druids have deities; it's mentioned in the DMG when discussing spellcasting. It was also a hard requirement in Dragonlance. Dark Sun didn't have deities, though you had to pick a single elemental (or paraelemental or quasi elemental) force to worship, whereas druids were devoted to a particular stretch of land. Birthright, likewise, required that your priests have a deity. Planescape did not (including priests who worshiped themselves, priests who had abstract concepts as their deity, and all sorts of other options), and made explicit another option: Pantheon worship.



The thing is, the Paladin was not a low-power class for most of it's life. While 3.x severely depowered non-casters (and half-casters) and powered up full casters, a Paladin was pretty darn stout in 1e, and not bad in 2e. The monk likewise lost a lot of power in the transition from 1e to 3.x, because of the changes the game made in combat and magic. Wizards, by comparison, were relatively WEAK in AD&D, because saving throws worked differently, it took them forever to regain spells that they'd cast, and they seldom had a lot of spells or resources to work with (making magic items was a high-level ability, and much more under DM control, and less subject to cheese unless your DM was a Cheddar Monk).

Yes, i meant havent. When i type on my phone (like now) i get a lot of stupid typos, sorry.

dragonlance is a bit of an odd case. Originally everyone needed a god for spells, even arcane casters and extra planar mages. Iirc they had knights of solamnia instead of paladins and non casting pagan druids. Then during the age of mortals they discovered godless mysticism and sorcery, which I believe has remained an option even after the gods return.

Thrudd
2015-02-06, 05:14 PM
I once had a player make a favored soul who was his own source of divine power. It never saw the table (opted for a half-dragon five-headed hydra instead), but I had no problems with it. While I've yet to make an atheist setting and have the option for them to do the divine link-up, I've never required clerics to have a connection to any particular deities, much less paladins, rangers, or druids.

If you were ok with a half dragon five headed hydra as a PC, I feel like you're probably ok with just about anything. Lol

Thrudd
2015-02-06, 06:06 PM
For my 1e setting, I don't use a pantheon. All cleric PC's are a part of the church of light, a monotheistic-ish religion (except there are a pair of deities they worship instead of one, The Lord and Lady). There are different saints and heroes which people sometimes pray to and might have as a patron; paladins have a certain hero-saint that inspires their order. The cleric's actual beliefs are not necessarily relevant to whether they receive spells, at least for the first couple spell levels it is the training and discipline more than a divine connection. Even at higher levels, emotional discipline and empathy are what allows a cleric to access their spells ( following good alignment, basically), rather than an actual belief or communing with deity (that may or may not really exist or be a deity). Evil or neutral clerics are members of various secret cults worshipping death or demons or ancient lovecraftian horrors, and their spells likewise come from discipline and psychic connection to their fellow cultists.

Druids follow the spirits of nature, which is a sort of animist pantheon similar to Shinto. They don't worship anything, but have a tradition of respecting and communing with those spirits (which again may or may not actually exist as believed). Their power also comes mainly from discipline and communal consciousness shared with their fellow Druids (being true neutral).

The reason all divine casters belong to one of these organizations ( the church or the Druids or a secret cult), is because these are the only places a person could learn the particular discipline and methods to be such a spell caster. Additionally, empathic, communal consciousness is what allows access to those particular spells, so only someone who identified strongly with one of the groups would be able to make it work.

JusticeZero
2015-02-06, 06:27 PM
Yes, but it was because the cosmology was different. The question to ask isn't "Can I do this?" so much as it is "Hey, can you tell me more about how the planes and gods work in the world our characters inhabit?" Once you know that, you might see all sorts of unusual options that create neat new opportunities.

Solaris
2015-02-07, 02:13 PM
It doesn't mean that, nor the opposite. It's possibile either way, which is why munchkins were just one of the possibilities I mentioned. I also simply noted that, as written in the manual, the option of playing an atheistic cleric present itself as merely an afterthought and not a flashed out roleplaying concept.
Please do not be so eager to call in fallacies and other buzzwords when they do not apply at all.

Permit me to quote you as a rebuttal to your own statement.


Finally, the fact that a Cleric or some other divine caster can be an atheist always sounded more like an excuse to have the player pick whatever Domains they want instead of selecting from a limited list, instad of it being a roleplay opportunity of any kind. Basically just a little addendum to please those that want to make a custom list of Domains, be them munchkins or just players that are a little picky.

Emphasis mine. I've highlighted for you everything which suggests Stormwind Fallacious thinking, while left without highlighting everything which does not. A single clause on your statement doesn't exactly utterly reverse everything else you said, particularly when the clause is written with significantly weaker and less charged language than the rest of your statement. You may not have meant it that way, but alas; that's the way it's written.

While it's reasonable and possible for you to clarify that you hadn't meant it the way it came out, your statement parses as violating the Stormwind Fallacy by suggesting very strongly players who pick domains over deities are munchkins who pass up roleplay with only a token admission that they could just be 'a little picky'. It is therefore unreasonable to assert that you didn't say what you said and that I'm wrong for reading what you wrote.


If you were ok with a half dragon five headed hydra as a PC, I feel like you're probably ok with just about anything. Lol

You might have a point there. The party eventually made him take a feat from Dragonlance that let him temporarily assume human form just so he could go into dungeons and towns with them, rather than sit outside making sad puppy eyes (lots of sad puppy eyes) until they came back out.

Malimar
2015-02-07, 03:43 PM
There was a thread on this a while back, *searches*

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?302449-Opinions-on-deity-less-Clerics

^That one's past the necro limit, but has some good discussion.

I mostly stand by the opinion I put forth in that thread:


Deity-less clerics annoy me. I mostly dislike it because it's a deliberate failure to engage with the setting.

Elaboration: Being affiliated with a church, guild, or government is something players should be seeking out! They're great sources of both plot hooks and help dealing with said plot; very useful and flavorful for the party and for the DM. Clerics are among the only classes which by default come affiliated with such an in-character organization and support structure. But if you go deity-less, you're choosing to throw that away for an inconsequential mechanical benefit.

That said, I don't actually go so far as to ban deity-less clerics in my 3.5e and PF games.

I even allow clerics to follow the whole pantheon (which has all the mechanical benefits of going deity-less and few/none of the mechanical downsides) or to pick out any number of deities from the pantheon to specialize in. Also, I only have a 12-deity system (well, 9 deities and 3 non-deific religions), so each deity offers 25ish domains, instead of the 5ish that's common for your standard-issue 3.5e deity, so you're much more likely to find a domain combination you like even sticking with just one god. In short, there's no mechanical reason in my game to be a cleric of an ideal, so the choice is more genuinely character-based rather than mechanics-based, which makes the choice bother me slightly less.

I've also, reading some threads here recently, come to appreciate the RP potential of clerics getting subtle messages from their gods, and it makes me a little sad that nobody's playing a cleric in any of the games I'm running. If I had clerics but they were ideal-worshippers, that would just be even more frustrating.

In short, whenever anybody wants to worship an ideal instead of one or more deities, I allow it and just quietly die a little inside.

goto124
2015-02-07, 08:03 PM
How important are gods in your campaigns? Are they there for flavor, or part of a complex story you have written? If a player want to specialise in a combination of domains that isn't covered by any of your gods, do you make up a god or tell her to chose a different set of domains?

Malimar
2015-02-07, 08:22 PM
How important are gods in your campaigns? Are they there for flavor, or part of a complex story you have written?

I think mine serve basically the same purpose as the standard-issue gods (though I like to think mine are marginally more interesting than at least the dull-as-dishwater Greyhawk gods, though not as interesting as the gods of some settings), or the gods of any given setting, or really any detail of a setting (political entities, geographical features, races, etc): they're there to be used in the campaign.

As with race and region of origin, choice of deity is an area where a player can choose to weave their character into the cloth of the setting before even starting the game. When a player chooses not to do this, I see it as a sadly missed opportunity.


If a player want to specialise in a combination of domains that isn't covered by any of your gods, do you make up a god or tell her to chose a different set of domains?

I'd suggest they pick two gods to serve equally (the first game I played had one cleric who served both Lolth and Olidammara, so I know I'm one of at least two DMs in the world who allows this), or serve the whole pantheon. My gods are (by and large) not jealous; they take what obeisance they're offered.

goto124
2015-02-07, 08:40 PM
I don't even know how gods are NORMALLY used in tabletop campaigns, because I've been playing games where they're nothing but flavor. Could someone enlighten me please?

Tengu_temp
2015-02-07, 08:44 PM
That is just... an absurd generalization. The editions I play doesn't even have "CoDzilla", and you're crushing dozens of great character concepts with that unchecked scorn. You might as well say "anyone who wants to play a wizard is bent on breaking the game with utter disregard for everyone else." I'd say you're spending too much time on the 3.5 forums if you really believe most players are like that, except I'm pretty sure I've seen you saying you don't play D&D on more than occasion.

The generalization I made is covered by my experiences. Though I suppose there were a few more types I didn't mention. But in general, most players who play godless clerics in settings where godless clerics are not a common thing will belong to one of those categories:
1. Wanting to cherry-pick spheres (DND 3e only).
2. Wanting the abilities of a cleric without having to RP a character who's a priest of a certain religion and has the responsibilities and code of conduct of such a character.
3. Special snowflake syndrome.
4. RL atheist who doesn't want to play a religious character (in which case playing in a setting where the existence of gods is a fact is probably not the smartest choice).
There are some exceptions, which is why I said "most" and not "all", but those exceptions are rare.



At least in my experience, even in 3.5, which is where the issue you're discussing existed, Clerics are overall much more fun for the group when they play CoDzilla, or pick their abilities to fit what they want their concept to do, or the like. A Cleric with DMM Persist Divine Power is a fun, versatile melee or ranged combatant. It's also nowhere near what the Cleric's actual power is, so I find the assertion that using the Cleric class to make a passable gish is "cheap powergaming" to be patently absurd. If someone wanted to cheaply powergame, they'd pick a god to worship, and use Planar Ally to get friends to obliviate the need for gishing or fighting in the first place, or later on call their god up on the divination phone to get answers as-needed.

Woosh! There goes the point I was making, right above your head.



And in the end, why would whether or not they want in-character responsibilities matter? If a player wants to use the Cleric chassis to play someone whose magic is superpowers, or fluffed as some sort of arcane magic training, or bound souls, or whatever, what's there to stop them? Someone taking on fluff responsibilities for their character should be rewarded with fluff benefits. A Cleric who is a priest of a church has access to their records, resources, allies, and the like, in exchange for the responsibilities that job carries. The same would apply to a Wizard or Rogue who is a priest of a church.

I believe that refluffing shouldn't be limitless, and there are some DND classes that require a specific fluff - mostly the spellcasting ones. A wizard's ability to use magic comes from learning, a sorcerer's comes from natural talent. A druid draws power from nature. A cleric channels the power of a diety. Those are just minor fluff limitations that still let you create an endless array of character concepts.

Who would stop a player from playing a cleric as a superhero with no divine connections whatsoever? I would, if I ran the game. Similarily I wouldn't allow a character with 10 intelligence and 8 wisdom played as some kind of tactical genius. There has to be some relation between fluff and mechanics.


How important are gods in your campaigns? Are they there for flavor, or part of a complex story you have written? If a player want to specialise in a combination of domains that isn't covered by any of your gods, do you make up a god or tell her to chose a different set of domains?

Actually, since I pretty much don't play DND (as it was mentioned before), I don't remember when was the last time I played a game where gods are confirmed to even exist, as opposed to something people just worship and believe in.

The only exception was a large-scale mecha game where some creatures had pretentions of godhood, but they were actually extremely advanced and ancient aliens or visitors from alternate realities. And we ended up killing most of them.

M Placeholder
2015-02-07, 10:54 PM
Anyone who has played a D&D campaign using either the Dark Sun or Planescape setting has done this.

Dark Sun is set on Athas, a world which is isolated from the outer planes by the Gray, and has never had true gods. The conduits that link other worlds to the Astral and the outer planes are blocked by the Gray, and so the gods cannot tap into the belief of the people of Athas. The clerics of Athas instead worship the elements, and get their divine magic from the inner planes. The sorcerer kings can also grant power to their templars from the inner planes, but they are not gods, no matter how much they force their subjects to worship them.

In planescape, clerics of two of the factions, the Athar and the Believers of the Source, can get divine spells without worshiping a god. The Athar, who belive that all gods are frauds and belive in the Great Unknown, have priests that get their power from the Astral. The Belivers of the Source, who believe that life is a series of tests and that everyone can asend to a higher plane of existance, get their power from the Ethereal.

The Insanity
2015-02-07, 11:21 PM
I play FR so no. Also in any setting that has actual gods, Clerics need to worship at least one to get their spells, or some other comperatively powerful being, like a demon lord or an archdevil (although in those two above cases it more like the archdevils and demon lords are just channeling Hell's and Abyss's power rather than grant spells themselves). I won't have it any other way.
For my homebrew setting I'm kinda conflicted. On one hand I like the idea of gods really existing, but I also want to try the ideal concept although refluffed.

Solaris
2015-02-07, 11:32 PM
I've also, reading some threads here recently, come to appreciate the RP potential of clerics getting subtle messages from their gods, and it makes me a little sad that nobody's playing a cleric in any of the games I'm running. If I had clerics but they were ideal-worshippers, that would just be even more frustrating.

I've had fun with this one. Not all clerics have to be straight-laced priests, and not all gods are... sober. It took an entire order of clerics working simultaneously to keep this god, a dwarven god of alcohol and debauchery, out of trouble.
The cleric was, as most of his order were, actually his god's designated driver (and no, the cleric had no idea what that meant) and the god absconded with him most any time he was asleep to fulfill said DD duties, except it was no fun to party with someone who wasn't drinking, so the god made him immune to the effects of alcohol. He'd usually offer some advice when the cleric needed help during these nights out in dreamworld bars.


In short, whenever anybody wants to worship an ideal instead of one or more deities, I allow it and just quietly die a little inside.

Is there any other way to DM?

YossarianLives
2015-02-07, 11:32 PM
I don't even know how gods are NORMALLY used in tabletop campaigns, because I've been playing games where they're nothing but flavor. Could someone enlighten me please?
It really depends. Some have none while other settings like the forgotten realms have over one hundred. In my current setting their are eight.

M Placeholder
2015-02-07, 11:52 PM
How important are gods in your campaigns? Are they there for flavor, or part of a complex story you have written? If a player want to specialise in a combination of domains that isn't covered by any of your gods, do you make up a god or tell her to chose a different set of domains?


I'm a 3.5 guy, so for me, the gods (or lack thereof), are pretty important.

For the Dark Sun campaign I am DMing, there are no gods, but one of my players portrays a Cleric of Water, and as life is cheap, and water and iron are worth more than gold, the elemental spirits are very important in the setting. He is also the most respected member of the team. He generally plays divine spellcasters, and so if he wanted to play a priest, it had to be an elemental one.

Im also starting another 3.5 campaign using the Planescape setting, and if they want to worship one of the dieties or a pantheon, thats fine, but they can always worship the Great Unknown or the Source. As the Outer Planes are the homes of the gods, they are pretty important.

Also, if any of my players want to make up their own god and start worshipping it, thats allowed too. So, for example, one of my players is portraying a gnome, and they want to worship a god of Giant Space Hamsters or Turnips, then that god will come into being. Get enough followers, and maybe they can convince the other powers to let them into the pantheon.

Yora
2015-02-08, 12:39 AM
How important are gods in your campaigns? Are they there for flavor, or part of a complex story you have written? If a player want to specialise in a combination of domains that isn't covered by any of your gods, do you make up a god or tell her to chose a different set of domains?

Gods are simply spirits. But since they are spirits of things that are global in scale, they pay even less attention to individual people or even whole cities. They aren't really worshipped because that doesn't get you any actual benefits. Local scale spirits is where all the rites and offers are happening.

Talakeal
2015-02-08, 03:52 AM
I play FR so no. Also in any setting that has actual gods, Clerics need to worship at least one to get their spells, or some other comperatively powerful being, like a demon lord or an archdevil (although in those two above cases it more like the archdevils and demon lords are just channeling Hell's and Abyss's power rather than grant spells themselves). I won't have it any other way.
For my homebrew setting I'm kinda conflicted. On one hand I like the idea of gods really existing, but I also want to try the ideal concept although refluffed.

You rigidly enforce a god's only rule in a system where there isn't one by default, but aren't sure if you want to include it in your own setting because you like the concept? That seems a bit odd to me.

As for myself, I am not sure how I would react to a godless priest in my own world. In my setting you can be a priest of any sort of spirit, be it a true god, a nature spirit, a local folk religion, and ancestor spirit, a totem, a devil, an ascended mortal, an entire pantheon, etc.; the list is pretty inclusive and it is fully possible to be a priest who is more powerful than your god.

But then again, I also have several charlatan religions and philosophies that don't actually follow any spirit. Presumably these religions have priests, but I am not actually sure if they would get divine power from them.

Roxxy
2015-02-08, 04:33 AM
Kinda. I'm considerig a setup where the gods are personifications of nature and ideals. Divine Casters can cast spells by revering that which the gods personify, which means honoring that god, but a lot of Clerics see these gods as figurative creations that reflect the traditions, values, fears, and relationships with nature of the culture that birthed them. They still consider the gods important, just not in a literal sense.

This isn't a universal view, however.

Yora
2015-02-08, 04:40 AM
You mean like people represent the gods as powerful beings in myth and depictions, but the priests consider them to be impersonal forces? I think that would work quite well and is quite similar to what I am doing.

Roxxy
2015-02-08, 04:57 AM
I dunno. Example time. We have Bjorn, god of storms. The culture that Bjorn represents (different cultures have their own pantheons) has legends about Bjorn's life, personality, deeds, relationships with other gods, and moral and ethical values. Traditions to revere him exist. The traditionalist Clerics think he exists, and revere him. The figurative Clerics, however, do not believe Bjorn literally exists, but think the figure of Bjorn has great value, despite being imaginary. Bjorn personifies nature, giving meaning to the forces of weather, so that they become more intimate. The legends surround him show how the culture thinks and what they believe, as well as what they fear and what they value. They give people a way to think about themselves and their people that has meaning. The rituals given to Bjorn give people joy in good times, confidence in worrying times, and solace in bad times. Bjorn is just a symbol, but a powerful and meaningful symbol. So, the figurative Cleric reveres him, and through revering a personification of nature or of ideals can use divine magic.

Of course, traditionalist and figurativist Clerics fight viciously, but it seems the figurativists are slowly pulling ahead.

Lavranzo
2015-02-08, 05:00 AM
In my group, we have a palading following "Science" as a world-driving power... xD
Our cleric was following "Death", not as a god, but as a force of will.
I dont remember ever having followed a god or diety... Maybe I should try that :d (Our DM is really carefree and lets us do more or less whatever we want, even to the point of creating dieties our characters can follow).

Mastikator
2015-02-08, 05:05 AM
I once played a normal D&D 3.5e game, one of the players played as a druid and didn't select any deity to follow, instead just went with "spirits of nature and stuff".

Drakefall
2015-02-08, 05:08 AM
Nope.

To me the attraction of playing a divine spellcaster is the idea of pretending to be a devout worshiper of XYZ. Playing a cleric or similar without a deity, or some form of supernatural entity or entities be they spirits or the manifestations of the elements or whatever, just seems like a wasted opportunity. A character can have a personal relationship with a deity, but not with an ideal. You can't seek advice from an ideal, can't hang out in dreams with an ideal, can't fall in love with an ideal, can't be let down by an ideal.

Yeah, I guess I can see the attraction of a character who believes so hard and faithfully in Good that he doesn't need no pansy intermediary god telling him what's right, manifests divine powers, goes beyond the impossible and kicks reason to the curb. That is a cool concept in its own right, but the deity thing just seems so much more capable of providing cool RP interactions and plot hooks that I'm loathe to accept ideal-worshipers or what have you.

Additionally, I've barely gotten to play any fantasy games in my RP career and really I just want to experience a somewhat "classic" game, whether I play in it or run it, and deities are just part and parcel of that.

So, I guess I wouldn't have a problem with anyone doing it in a theoretical game I'd be playing in, but would be inclined to disallow is in a theoretical game I'd run unless a player had a very cool and sincere concept for it. Maybe I'm just a rigid jerk who can't get his head around the cool, hip RP styles of today, though?

goto124
2015-02-08, 07:03 AM
Drakefall: So if I wanted to play a deityless cleric in your game, I'll have to play another class such as Bard?

If you think it's pointless to play a deityless cleric, but someone else doesn't think the same way, let that player do so. If you think people should not be able to be a cleric/paladin unless they follow RP... Why punish mechanics with roleplay restrictions? It doesn't make sense.

Frozen_Feet
2015-02-08, 07:24 AM
I do allow playing clerics with no specific gods. They're given a special mention in my extensive houserules for 3.x.. For some reason, they always tend to acquire a distinctly buddhist flavor and heavily overlap with monks and psions.

I do NOT allow clerics without religion, because that would be just silly.

You want to play an areligious atheist AND cast spells? You play a wizard. Or a psion. Though even the latter two archetypes only fit if you blatantly ignore all the meditating, incense-burning and demon-summoning. As a priest put it to one of my characters: "You scorn at priests, but what is it you do, yourself? You dress in white robes, you draw circles on the floor, you purport to commune with spirits of the dead. You call for those who came before you, those who've yet to come, and those inhuman forces that inhabit the spheres beyond Earth. What are you, if not a priest?"

goto124
2015-02-08, 07:29 AM
*goes off to make a Cleric of Banjo* (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0137.html)

Won't actually have any cleric levels of course- PC will be a Bard! How will you guys take to a PC who doesn't have cleric class levels, but calls himself a cleric or even IS a cleric RP-wise? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html)

So if I want a deityless or atheist cleric where those are banned, I'll have to find some special heal-based build from another class, like wizard or psion. How well this goes might depend on system and player's mastery of said system.

Drakefall
2015-02-08, 08:13 AM
Drakefall: So if I wanted to play a deityless cleric in your game, I'll have to play another class such as Bard?
No? I think? It depends on what you mean.

If you want to play a character with holy magics in a d&d or similar game I run then you'll have to have a religion. It doesn't have to be a god that you worship and get powers from, but it has to have a consciousness of some sort and be a thing that it makes sense to base a religion on.

If you want to be a spellcaster who has healing spells or can wear armour or similar, but specifically don't want a religious character, then no cleric for you, but we can probably work out a solution whereby you can play your concept, I don't have to be sad, and everyone has fun.


If you think it's pointless to play a deityless cleric, but someone else doesn't think the same way, let that player do so. If you think people should not be able to be a cleric/paladin unless they follow RP... Why punish mechanics with roleplay restrictions? It doesn't make sense.
Well that's a bit harsh. I don't want to be a meanie, but I don't want to run a game wherein there is this big horrible thing that makes me not want to run the game.

It's not like I'm going to come down upon a player with such a character concept like some totalitarian ton of bricks here. It would be brought up during character creation and I imagine the conversation would entirely cordial. I've never been part of a group where any player wasn't completely willing to alter character concepts, or hell just come up with completely different ones, to create a group that jazzed well and fit the GM's setting, etc. I'm sure something could be worked out whereby you could worship an appropriate deity/thing that doesn't restrict you because it matches with how you want to play your character anyway or you can play a different class that gets you more or less what you want mechanically.

Or, y'know, maybe I'll just give up and do this...

In short, whenever anybody wants to worship an ideal instead of one or more deities, I allow it and just quietly die a little inside.
Still though, I don't think its very nice to make your GM sad just because you want to play a specific concept.

EDIT: To say moar stuff

How will you guys take to a PC who doesn't have cleric class levels, but calls himself a cleric or even IS a cleric RP-wise?
Sure! Though if they want their magic to be all divine then again they gotta worship some dude just like all the other divine casters.


So if I want a deityless or atheist cleric where those are banned, I'll have to find some special heal-based build from another class, like wizard or psion. How well this goes might depend on system and player's mastery of said system.
I agree that is does depend on systems, but I'm personally willing to work with players in this regard.

In my case if I were to run a fantasy game it'd probably be 5th ed d&d, in which case if all the player wanted was some healing spells, but didn't want anything to do with this god business or play a bard (Which are absolutely amazingly awesome in 5th ed) because reasons, then they can play a wizard and we can tweak their spell list a bit so they can have healing spells.

Hell, I'd probably even be willing to let a player play the cleric class, but fluff their magic IC as arcane. Maybe make one or two little mechanical changes with the mechanics that simulate overly divine stuff, but yeah, that'd probably be fine.

M Placeholder
2015-02-08, 09:32 AM
So Drakefall, what about Clerics of the Believers of the Source or the Athar, who believe in The Source (Ethereal) and the Great Unknown respectively and get their devine power from non godly sources? The Athar have been implied to exist in 5th edition (Kesto Brighteyes, gnome wizard and prominent member in 2nd ed, has a tale to tell about the Djinn in the 5th ed monster manual), and if I wanted to play a character that thought all the gods were frauds and believed in something that was potentially greater than them, ie the Great Unknown, could I?

Thrudd
2015-02-08, 10:02 AM
So Drakefall, what about Clerics of the Believers of the Source or the Athar, who believe in The Source (Ethereal) and the Great Unknown respectively and get their devine power from non godly sources? The Athar have been implied to exist in 5th edition (Kesto Brighteyes, gnome wizard and prominent member in 2nd ed, has a tale to tell about the Djinn in the 5th ed monster manual), and if I wanted to play a character that thought all the gods were frauds and believed in something that was potentially greater than them, ie the Great Unknown, could I?

That really depends on the cosmology, doesn't it? Is the game happening in the planescape setting? Does the great wheel even exist? Each DM needs to consider how it is that clerics and divine casters actually get their magic, and how their universe works. If clerics are able to operate without the patronage of a deity or other being of similar power, where does magic come from? Another question that needs to be answered is why all clerics of any religion have access to almost all the same spells, which work identically.
For the most part, I feel like DM's probably aren't going to bother getting this deep into cosmic metaphysics. The books say clerics are granted their spells by a deity, that's the answer.
I like to develop a clear system of metaphysics for my world to explain why the spells and rules work the way they do. This information is not necessarily available to the players/characters, but it informs what sorts of things are possible.

Drakefall
2015-02-08, 10:09 AM
So Drakefall, what about Clerics of the Believers of the Source or the Athar, who believe in The Source (Ethereal) and the Great Unknown respectively and get their devine power from non godly sources? The Athar have been implied to exist in 5th edition (Kesto Brighteyes, gnome wizard and prominent member in 2nd ed, has a tale to tell about the Djinn in the 5th ed monster manual), and if I wanted to play a character that thought all the gods were frauds and believed in something that was potentially greater than them, ie the Great Unknown, could I?
I don't know what those are.

Lemme google...

Ah, Planescape stuff. Planescape is a setting very different from traditional fantasy ones, where belief has power all of its own, so in a Planescape game then yeah sure.

For my regular fantasy games, that'd be a no to a Believers of the Source style thing. Pseudo-Taoist philosophy ain't enough to get you divine magic... although I am now having flashback to bad Chinese movies featuring dudes shooting Taoist lasers from there hands so I'm sure it has its place in certain genres. An Athar style religion would depend on whether some form of "Great Unknown" proxy existed within the specific campaign setting to give you powers or not.

Also: What Thrudd said.

neonchameleon
2015-02-08, 12:03 PM
Does a fake religion count? One where there is officially a deity - but the actual religion is a scam set up by the inner circle. And the PC entirely believes in the scam and ends up with divine magic despite the religion itself being founded by a vampire con artist to give themself willing pawns.

(People who know Eberron can probably guess which religion there I'm talking about).

LibraryOgre
2015-02-08, 12:28 PM
Yes, i meant havent. When i type on my phone (like now) i get a lot of stupid typos, sorry.

dragonlance is a bit of an odd case. Originally everyone needed a god for spells, even arcane casters and extra planar mages. Iirc they had knights of solamnia instead of paladins and non casting pagan druids. Then during the age of mortals they discovered godless mysticism and sorcery, which I believe has remained an option even after the gods return.

NP. I only worry about typos when they affect clarity (either the "I have no idea what you are saying" or situations like this), or when they're hilarious (someone typing "Marital Difficulties" instead of "Martial Difficulties").

The thing about DL for this is that, when you're talking about the Age of Mortals, you're talking about a literal change in system; Dragonlance Saga shared nothing mechanical with AD&D, and mystics were not technically "divine casters"... healers, yes, but they were literally people who discovered an internal power source akin to psionics. They may have been reflavored as divine casters when Saga ended and they switched to 3.x, but the fluff was never that they drew on some sort of divine, external source... it was entirely internal.

And I think that's one of the defining factors of a "divine" caster; they draw upon an external power that is, in one sense, mediated by their connection to that external power. A wizard (or arcane caster) may draw upon an external power, but their ability is not mediated by their connection to it; they can't be deprived of their spellcasting save by removing their ability to access the external power. A divine caster can also be deprived of their magical power (spells, granted powers, etc.) by souring their relationship with the external power. While that's conveniently personified in "deities", would a cleric of Justice continue to receive powers if he behaved in a manifestly unjust manner? Would a favored soul who believed in himself maintain his powers if his self-confidence was completely destroyed?

M Placeholder
2015-02-08, 12:51 PM
I don't know what those are.

Lemme google...

Ah, Planescape stuff. Planescape is a setting very different from traditional fantasy ones, where belief has power all of its own, so in a Planescape game then yeah sure.

For my regular fantasy games, that'd be a no to a Believers of the Source style thing. Pseudo-Taoist philosophy ain't enough to get you divine magic... although I am now having flashback to bad Chinese movies featuring dudes shooting Taoist lasers from there hands so I'm sure it has its place in certain genres. An Athar style religion would depend on whether some form of "Great Unknown" proxy existed within the specific campaign setting to give you powers or not.

Also: What Thrudd said.


The Believers of the Source actually believe in the power of the Ethereal plane, which grants them the divine powers for their clerics. Its overshadowed by the whole "live a thousand lifetimes and eventually become a god", but its a part of their creed.

As a side note, I think the Great Wheel should be a feature of every D&D setting, for the outer planes, the whole multiverse, and especially the city of Sigil. A living city that stands on the top of an infinate spire, and is the center of everything in the universe is just too cool not to include somewhere in your lore.

As for Eberron, Ive always taken the view that the three dragons created, then abandoned the world of Eberron, and that there are no gods. Like the Athar, the Clerics on Eberron draw their power from the Astral Plane - hence why there are no alignment restrictions for clerics, as its just a force that gives them power.

There was also Ravenloft, where all Clerics got their powers from the Dark Powers - the land of mists was a demiplane floating in the Deep Ethereal, and was cut off from the Outer Planes, so the gods could not reach the priests nor paladins, so the Dark Powers filled in. Nobody knows what the Dark Powers are, but one theory is that they are non-sentient and just respond to preset conditions. Who knows.

So in short, anyone who has played D&D in the settings of Dark Sun and Planescape certainly has played a game that did not require divine casters to follow gods, and depending on the interpretation of the nature of the powers, Dragonlance, Eberron and Ravenloft could count.

Angel Bob
2015-02-08, 12:53 PM
I once played an atheist cleric who drew strength from his conviction that divine power didn't exist. (A joke character, obviously, and not meant to represent or poke fun at actual atheists.)

In the campaign I'm currently running, one of my players is an atheist; she decided to play a cleric of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The jury is out as to whether or not the FSM actually exists or is just a school of thought. (The rest of the campaign is actually quite serious, so chances are it does not exist.)

Kalmageddon
2015-02-08, 01:31 PM
Permit me to quote you as a rebuttal to your own statement.



Emphasis mine. I've highlighted for you everything which suggests Stormwind Fallacious thinking, while left without highlighting everything which does not. A single clause on your statement doesn't exactly utterly reverse everything else you said, particularly when the clause is written with significantly weaker and less charged language than the rest of your statement. You may not have meant it that way, but alas; that's the way it's written.

While it's reasonable and possible for you to clarify that you hadn't meant it the way it came out, your statement parses as violating the Stormwind Fallacy by suggesting very strongly players who pick domains over deities are munchkins who pass up roleplay with only a token admission that they could just be 'a little picky'. It is therefore unreasonable to assert that you didn't say what you said and that I'm wrong for reading what you wrote.



You might have a point there. The party eventually made him take a feat from Dragonlance that let him temporarily assume human form just so he could go into dungeons and towns with them, rather than sit outside making sad puppy eyes (lots of sad puppy eyes) until they came back out.

The only part you didn't bolded in my post was "or just players that are a little picky". So yeah, the emphasis was most definitly yours. Not mine.
Way to cherry pick my statements. :smallsigh:

Also, I'm pretty sure you either don't know what Sormwind Fallacy exactly means or, just as a lot of people do, you have a very broad definition of that term in order to use it as a forum weapon every time someone even simply considers the possibility that a certain behaviour might be related to munchkins or similar players.

Solaris
2015-02-08, 03:57 PM
The only part you didn't bolded in my post was "or just players that are a little picky". So yeah, the emphasis was most definitly yours. Not mine.
Way to cherry pick my statements. :smallsigh:

It's... it's not cherry-picking when I'm picking out pretty much the entirety of it. Cherry-picking is when you're picking out the minor statement at the end, not when you point out the statement itself. If anything, you're cherry-picking.


Also, I'm pretty sure you either don't know what Sormwind Fallacy exactly means or, just as a lot of people do, you have a very broad definition of that term in order to use it as a forum weapon every time someone even simply considers the possibility that a certain behaviour might be related to munchkins or similar players.

Then by all means, enlighten me on how the Stormwind Fallacy (http://community.wizards.com/content/forum-topic/2861636) is not a means of explaining that RP and power are not on a zero-sum sliding scale. Please explain to me how 'munchkin' isn't a derogatory term that denotes the very worst sort of power-gamer (without choking on the hypocrisy of claiming a definition cannot shift with common usage whilst simultaneously redefining the term). I eagerly await your explanation of how I'm wrong rather than your baseless and unsupported suppositions.

TheCountAlucard
2015-02-08, 04:34 PM
Won't actually have any cleric levels of course- PC will be a Bard! How will you guys take to a PC who doesn't have cleric class levels, but calls himself a cleric or even IS a cleric RP-wise?Stuff like that generally doesn't concern me; excepting comics that intentionally referenced game mechanics for comedic purposes, like Order of the Stick, Goblins, Keychain of Creation, et cetera., my general experience is that characters can't go reading through the books or peek at each others' character sheets to know that one priest is a Cleric, one priest is not a Cleric, one Cleric is not a priest, et cetera. The lines on what clerics, paladins, fighters, wizards are should be a little fuzzy, lest you risk losing that fantastic feeling to the world.

Jay R
2015-02-08, 05:35 PM
Does that also mean that if you are running a setting where wizards are common and their magic taught openly they can no longer call themselves arcane?

In a campaign in which that sort of power is openly available to anyone, it's probably not called "arcane"; It's probably called "technological".


A DND player with a cleric who doesn't follow a diety, but an ideal, is almost always a sign of cheap powergaming - cherry-picking the spheres you want, and choosing the power of CoDzilla without wanting any pesky in-character responsibilities or codes of conduct to get in the way. Settings where godless clerics are an established and big part of the world might be an exception, but don't have to be.

I suspect that it's far more likely to be the result of somebody not interested in role-playing. Sometimes this goes along with power-gaming, but not always.

In my current 2E game, there are a druid and a cleric. The druid has a deity, and has done nothing with it. He's just a generic cleric. No problem.

The cleric is a priestess of Athena, and is playing the Greek aspects, and goddess of war and knowledge aspects. As a result, she can now use a short sword, has gotten knowledge at key points, and has an owl that works like a wizard's familiar.

Any behavior you want from the players should be rewarded.

Kalmageddon
2015-02-08, 05:43 PM
It's... it's not cherry-picking when I'm picking out pretty much the entirety of it. Cherry-picking is when you're picking out the minor statement at the end, not when you point out the statement itself. If anything, you're cherry-picking.

Uhm no. Because my statement was that the "atheist cleric" feature was probably to appease both to muchkin and players that are simply picky, without any particular preference towards any of these two options. Of these two, you focused entirely on the "munchkin" part, while I was considering both hypotesis equally.


Then by all means, enlighten me on how the Stormwind Fallacy (http://community.wizards.com/content/forum-topic/2861636) is not a means of explaining that RP and power are not on a zero-sum sliding scale. Please explain to me how 'munchkin' isn't a derogatory term that denotes the very worst sort of power-gamer (without choking on the hypocrisy of claiming a definition cannot shift with common usage whilst simultaneously redefining the term). I eagerly await your explanation of how I'm wrong rather than your baseless and unsupported suppositions.

Yes, it means exactly that. My statement, as I explained above, didn't mean that. Theferore, you either cited stormwind fallacy at random, or rather, due to simple proximity of themes, or you didn't know what it meant. Pick one. Either are forgivable and I don't care anyway, so there's no problem with me.
I also didn't redefine anything, so I have no idea what you're talking about? :smallconfused:

All I said was this:
The option of playing an atheist cleric is an underdeveloped and pretty shallow option in most settings as well as in the core book.
Therefore I simply speculated that it was being put in more for the mechanical advantages than for the roleplaying ones.
I simply aknowlege the existence of people that are not at all interested in the roleplaying aspect of ttrpgs. I simultaneously noted how the option of picking atheistic clerics that can pick any domain works at the advantage of these people as well as people that are picky about the domains of their cleric.
Which can be for a number of reasons, including being a munchkin, but I opted to put them in a separate category in order to not give the impression that all people that are picky about a mechanical aspect of their character are munchkins.
Something that failed spectacularly with you or that you simply willingly chose to ignore in order to have a good ol' pointless forum argument, seeing how you somehow accused me of being a stern supporter of roleplaying elitism.

What you're getting all worked up about, I don't have the faintest idea.
Is it because I said the "M" word? Dude, we've all met those kind of players. Doesn't mean that all players that like to have an effective characters are bad roleplayers, of course. Doesn't even mean that a munchkin can't be fun to play with, if he's not disruptive.
Honestly, I swear a lot of people think that Stormwind Fallacy is some sort of scientific fact that disproves the existance of munchkins. All it does is rightly point out that it's not necessary to be a bad roleplayer in order to be good at the mechanical aspects of the game. It doesn't mean that, regardless of this, no people are ever going to optimize their character at the expenses of good roleplaying.
It simply doesn't make it an automatic assumption.

God, I spent way to much time on your post. You will forgive me if I won't do it again, I hope.
Either way, I wouldn't be able to explain things more clearly, so if you still want to go on with your accusations, suit yourself.

LaserFace
2015-02-08, 06:56 PM
Most games I play seem to encourage divine casters to follow a god, but nobody's said it has to be done that way. My group has a sort of "don't be a ****" rule, which basically lets anyone do whatever they want, trusting that they're making their decisions for the right reasons (which is to say, a genuine desire to bring something the whole table enjoys having around). The only real exception to this is if it directly contradicts something really central to what the game is going to be about.

I currently run a 5E group in a custom setting where I just assume clerics are associated with religion. I've established the gods are a little "distant". Additionally, some cultures have the same gods as others but by different names, or the same names with different personalities; the point is, a lot is up in the air. I think there definitely exists some room for non-affiliated clerics to be running around, because it's all pretty mysterious to begin with.

But, because it's not the focus of the campaign or setting motifs, I don't delve too deeply into the details. I associate clerics with religion to adhere to the basic convention (which further separates them from other concepts, like the wizard), and I leave the player who makes the decision to stray from the norm to find a way to rationalize it for themselves and the rest of the party.

TheThan
2015-02-08, 08:14 PM
Personally I never liked the idea of just following a set of ideals.
A cleric is a member of the clergy. Now the clergy is a group or body of ordained persons in a religion. So by very definition a cleric must have at least a religion, if not a god they worship.

The idea of a cleric that does not belong to any given religion and does not believe in a god is foreign to me and I hate that players have that option in D&D. it just comes off as an excuse for cleric players to not to have to make a choice at character generation. These guys channel divine power from something, that means they probably ought to be believing in whatever is granting them their spells, since they have to actually pray for them.
Yet I always see it. I see clerics not choosing a god to worship and acting like fighters and rogues all the time, not bothering to take in to account the fact they are representing a faith in the game world and stealing from orphans is probably a bad call.

Talakeal
2015-02-08, 09:29 PM
Personally I never liked the idea of just following a set of ideals.
A cleric is a member of the clergy. Now the clergy is a group or body of ordained persons in a religion. So by very definition a cleric must have at least a religion, if not a god they worship.

The idea of a cleric that does not belong to any given religion and does not believe in a god is foreign to me and I hate that players have that option in D&D. it just comes off as an excuse for cleric players to not to have to make a choice at character generation. These guys channel divine power from something, that means they probably ought to be believing in whatever is granting them their spells, since they have to actually pray for them.
Yet I always see it. I see clerics not choosing a god to worship and acting like fighters and rogues all the time, not bothering to take in to account the fact they are representing a faith in the game world and stealing from orphans is probably a bad call.

So would you also object to a cleric who has a god but isn't part of a church? Say a prophet who speaks directly to the god and doesn't want to be part of a clergy who has become increasingly concerned with worldly affairs in place of their faith?

Velaryon
2015-02-09, 02:34 AM
I require clerics and favored souls to worship a deity in my games. It's strongly encouraged for other divine casters as well, but not strictly required except for the classes that explicitly get their powers from a divine being (which happens to be the full casters). I haven't had occasion to worry about whether this would apply to Archivists or not.

I've always viewed godless clerics as a cop-out, because the entire point of the cleric class is to be a spellcaster who worships a deity. I believe fluff is mutable, and should serve the needs of a game. This is different than treating fluff as meaningless, an idea to which I do not subscribe. If someone in my game wants to play a cleric but can't find a god in the setting that appeals to them, I'm willing to work with them to create a religion they can follow for their character. But I'm not willing to let them juts be a cleric of "good" or some nonsense like that. Other DM's in my group don't use this rule and that's fine (divine full-casters don't tend to be popular choices among this group anyway), but on this point I'm a stickler and no one has ever complained about it to me.

Milo v3
2015-02-09, 03:02 AM
In the games I've been in divine classes do not have to get power from a god, they got their power from a religion. Some religions don't have gods.

Necroticplague
2015-02-09, 04:19 AM
Yes. The crunch doesn't require a god in the system I played in, and the default "worship a god, get power' was a bit uninteresting to me. Pretty much all the clerics I've ever played instead essentially worshiped or followed a philosophy, instead of any kind of diety. One basically worshiped himself, in some odd "Its is our obligation to try and better ourselves through our life" viewpoint, another basically worshiped nature like a druid.

Talakeal
2015-02-14, 06:21 PM
Am I the only one that thinks that RPing a character with a code of conduct is too easy?

Many of the responses in this thread indicate that not choosing a god is an excuse not to RP, but for me it is quite the opposite. Following a code of conduct or sticking to a specific alignment is easy. You rarely ever have to make a decision (unless of course you are in a situation the DM designed to "test" you or make you fall). Whereas real people are complex, inconsistent, make mistakes, and have personal passions and prejudices that get in the way of their judgment. I don't play paladins not because they are too hard or restrictive, but because they are simply too simple and the only restrictions that matter are those that keep me from RPing a real person rather than an archetype.

goto124
2015-02-14, 08:03 PM
*comforts Talakeal*

Sounds like someone who isn't actually engaged in the game.

Leon
2015-03-01, 08:25 AM
Any Druid or Ranger i have ever played hasn't kowtowed to any named being. The clerics generally have since they tend to come with neatly packaged sets of style and spell bonuses. The last Divine caster i played in D&D started as a Archivist with a thirst for knowledge but eventually had to change to a Cloistered Cleric since the DM was stymieing my attempts at getting any form of Non clerical scroll to broaden my spell base (in the 5 levels prior making the change of class we found 2 Divine scrolls [both Cure spells that i had already...] and 3 Whole Spell books for wizards)

The change was mechanical so the char essentially stayed the same but now had the normal range of spells to draw from and didn't get tied to a god in the process

veti
2015-03-01, 03:54 PM
A cleric is a member of the clergy. Now the clergy is a group or body of ordained persons in a religion. So by very definition a cleric must have at least a religion, if not a god they worship.

(Emphasis added.)

Important distinction: "religion" is not the same as "god". There are such things as nontheistic religions, and there's no reason why they shouldn't have clerics.

Another complication is that a cleric can follow a pantheon, rather than a single god. Example (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0456.html). Or - within reason - a cleric can follow some subset of gods within a pantheon, without necessarily dedicating herself to one in particular. For instance, you could dedicate yourself to the betterment of your people through the benign power of the Aesir, and draw your power from Odin, Thor, Freya, etc., but try to avoid dealing with Loki, Hel et al. This opens the possibility that you might get conflicting orders from different patrons.

goto124
2015-03-01, 11:21 PM
Would you allow a player's cleric to worship a god that doesn't exist in your campaign universe?

BootStrapTommy
2015-03-01, 11:26 PM
I once played an atheist cleric who drew strength from his conviction that divine power didn't exist. (A joke character, obviously, and not meant to represent or poke fun at actual atheists.) Isn't that basically what an Urpriest is?

I find the idea of godless divine casters silly. How are they be "divine" casters if there is no "Divine" behind their casting?

Druids and rangers pass on this, but only because of how nicely the animist "nature spirits" idea fits with them. Making them more like pact magicians to me. But that's a personal opinion.

Solaris
2015-03-01, 11:28 PM
Would you allow a player's cleric to worship a god that doesn't exist in your campaign universe?

Who's to say that's not all of them? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eberron)

Coidzor
2015-03-01, 11:38 PM
I've never played a game where a Druid was required to have a deity aside from a handful of games set in Forgotten Realms. Because Forgotten Realms.

Paladins and Rangers have never been required to follow a god but they generally did anyway even if it wasn't explicit whether they were getting their spells from doing so.

Favored Souls explicitly don't have to follow a deity even though they're getting their powers from a given deity, at least from what I recall of the class writeup.

Spirit Shaman from what I recall don't derive their powers from a connection with a deity but rather nebulous spirits. I believe a similar deal is for Shaman from Oriental Adventures. Shugenja have something similar only with elements instead of deities as well.

I think there's been only one or two Clerics of causes, one attempt at a Cleric of a pantheon that fell through because no decision was ever reached as to what alignment, portfolios, domains, favored weapons, etc. would be appropriate to the pantheon when taken as a whole, and a whole gaggle of Clerics of Pelor because it's the easiest theme of cleric to roll with when put on the spot to make a Cleric in 10 minutes to join a level 1 game one wasn't expecting to join or where one was planning on using another character.


Would you allow a player's cleric to worship a god that doesn't exist in your campaign universe?

:smallconfused:

Too many variables.

What is the god they want to worship? Why do they want that deity in particular? Why hadn't I included either that Power or an analog(compare Ehlonna from Greyhawk and Mielikki from Forgotten Realms which are the same deity, IIRC, in Planescape) in my setting from the get go? Why do they want that god knowing that it's not part of my setting? Why have I settled firmly on it concretely not existing rather than not having considered it before now?


Am I the only one that thinks that RPing a character with a code of conduct is too easy?

Possibly.

Which is strange, given what sorts of statements are made about DMs who love to play Gotcha with Paladins so ubiquitously. :smallconfused: You're aware of that stereotype even if you've never run into it in person, right? The Paladin Falls school of DMing?

Rather depends on the code of conduct and the incentive for the DM to screw with ya and the DM's natural inclination to screw with ya, too, I suppose.

I mean, sure, it's relatively simple to just be a big damned hero of a paladin if one's DM is on one's side, but it's not necessarily easy and there's a lot of ways the DM can complicate things, especially once they start homebrewing/houseruling/fudging things for the sake of pathos.

goto124
2015-03-01, 11:58 PM
If a god exists in a campaign, this god is an NPC and can be controlled by the DM. Sounds sorta indicative of lack of trust between player and DM, to be honest (though slightly justified if they're strangers, playing in a PbP, etc). It's essentially refluffed cleric of a cause- instead of saying 'I'm a cleric of goodness', you say 'I'm a Cleric of the Banjo of Goodness!'

A player may have greater incentive to do this with a paladin, to avoid DM-screwiness.

TheCountAlucard
2015-03-02, 01:29 AM
If a god exists in a campaign, this god is an NPC and can be controlled by the DM.Unless he's played by another player, of course! :smallwink:

Coidzor
2015-03-02, 02:13 AM
If a god exists in a campaign, this god is an NPC and can be controlled by the DM. Sounds sorta indicative of lack of trust between player and DM, to be honest (though slightly justified if they're strangers, playing in a PbP, etc). It's essentially refluffed cleric of a cause- instead of saying 'I'm a cleric of goodness', you say 'I'm a Cleric of the Banjo of Goodness!'

A player may have greater incentive to do this with a paladin, to avoid DM-screwiness.

I can't help but feel this is intended to be a response to my answer given that it appeared after my post and Solaris was the only other poster who had responded to your question, but I frankly don't see what about my statement you're actually reacting to.

How does having a godly NPC out of a whole set of godly NPCs that I could theoretically do something with if I had anything that called for a deity to do indicate a lack of trust between the DM(myself) and a player or players? :smallconfused:

A cleric of a deity or non-deific religion is not a refluffed cleric of a cause. The line's a bit more blurry when it comes to non-deific religions and non-religious philosophies, though. The custom deity may only have a small following and no big player factions in the setting will be theocracies devoted to that deity, but they're going to have certain RPing opportunities and contacts that a cleric of a cause would not have.

We once had a Cleric of Stoicism, for example, because in that setting Philosophy gave you magical powers if you were good at it/believed in it strongly/lived up to its ideals, but not the sort of magic that hermeticism or arcane magic gave you, because hermetics was a sort of anti-philosophy.



How important are gods in your campaigns? Are they there for flavor, or part of a complex story you have written? If a player want to specialise in a combination of domains that isn't covered by any of your gods, do you make up a god or tell her to chose a different set of domains?

Mostly they're there as flavor and backstory. If I have a theocracy I need to have something on the god or gods that theocracy worships to figure out what form of governance and how benevolent/negligent/malevolent they are.

Occasionally there'll be evil plots by the Saturday Morning Cartoon Villain deities (I'm looking at you, Bane) and quests given out by the local deities of arts, civilization, beauty, healing, goodness, or hunting down dirty monsters and murdering them in their beds while forcing their children to watch. There'll be churches and holy organizations and cultists and spirits who are servitors or otherwise associated with some deity or another.

Be pretty rare for an actual deity to appear, though, even at higher level. It's sort of like the idea of actually meeting Asmodeus the Memetic Badass of 3.X/Afro-Canon.

Well, unless we're talking about a game where Small Gods are a thing, either Discworld style or Exalted style, where gods are basically spirits overseeing/representing/of places, things, and concepts. So instead of a gaggle of naiads for a river system, there'd be a hierarchy of little gods for each river overseen by a god of the river system as a whole. Not usually a fan of that sort of thing, since I prefer to have a delineation between spirits and powers, even if it's about orders of magnitude, and having little gods of places that get offerings but not worship and big gods that are patrons and deal with things on a cosmic scale seems needlessly confusing and like the language is going to get a bit cluttered.

Depends on the combination of domains and their explanation for why they want them, I suppose. But, yeah, I'd generally be fine with taking 5-10 minutes to hash out the basics of a deity for a player if none of the ones on offer fit and they don't wanna just follow a principle or philosophy or cause. 'Course, if the player isn't interested in discussing their interests and doesn't give me anything to work with, well, gotta play ball with me for me to play ball with you, right?


How will you guys take to a PC who doesn't have cleric class levels, but calls himself a cleric or even IS a cleric RP-wise? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html)

I'm perfectly fine with non-Clerics holding positions in a church hierarchy, yes. :smallconfused:




Why do people have such an aversion to divine energy sources that are not gods to the point where they won't allow (or in most cases even comprehend) any other option?

I don't know how far we can delve into that topic without bringing up real world religions and people's feelings towards them, but I believe going through that rabbit hole will brush up against that topic if not break it wide open.


Also, I am not sure I like the idea of using RP restrictions as a balancing mechanic. For one thing they tend to do it arbitrarilty, for example giving low powered classes like monk and paladin heavy restrictions while putting non on OP classes like wizard.

Trying to use RP restrictions as a balancing mechanic is a pretty terrible idea as it's been expressed in D&D 3.0, 3.5, and PF at least. Of course, the RP restrictions aren't even necessarily a balancing mechanic in the case of the Apostle of Peace, but they're still really, really annoying for actually playing a game, even abiding by the other strictures of BoED.

IIRC alignment restrictions as balance wasn't so hot in AD&D, either, but at least Paladins were nicer in AD&D than they are in 3.0/3.5. Probably 4e, too. Honestly can't remember much about Paladin restrictions in 4e, since they were made more like Clerics than they had been, so I believe they just had to do what their Power told them to do rather than following some general heroic code of LGness.


Sometime I list out the deities at play start - don't like the options for faith/domain combinations? tough. There is no good god of war and fire, sun and death, travel and knowledge. oh and no gods of luck domain domain at all, I forgot it when creating the setting and its cannon now. If you REALLY want it present in the setting you should get on BECOMING A GOD (its D&D - get on it already).

So, basically, 5 to 15 minutes of the DM's time writing up a skeleton of a deity that you hadn't thought of when you were worldbuilding is equivalent to several months if not a few years of staying in the game and working up a character to become a deity? :smallconfused:

zinycor
2015-03-02, 08:54 AM
Am I the only one that thinks that RPing a character with a code of conduct is too easy?

Many of the responses in this thread indicate that not choosing a god is an excuse not to RP, but for me it is quite the opposite. Following a code of conduct or sticking to a specific alignment is easy. You rarely ever have to make a decision (unless of course you are in a situation the DM designed to "test" you or make you fall). Whereas real people are complex, inconsistent, make mistakes, and have personal passions and prejudices that get in the way of their judgment. I don't play paladins not because they are too hard or restrictive, but because they are simply too simple and the only restrictions that matter are those that keep me from RPing a real person rather than an archetype.

Well, i disagree at that, having a deity normally just tells you what to do on certain situations, i will speak from Werewolf the apocalypse since that is the deity system am most comfortable.

A get of fenris knows that Fenris respects strenght and strenght alone, but he doesn't have all the answers to every problem, or moral dificulty. A shadow Lord values victory, and power, but grandfather thunder doesn't tell him how to achieve victory.

In the end i Fell that following a deity should be something that gives you motivation, not a set of rules of how your character reacts and thinks on every situation.

the problem i fell comes more on the side that DnD deitys have an alignment, so if your deity is LG, you will always take LG option, which oversimplifies the whole having a deity thing....

Yora
2015-03-02, 09:08 AM
BECMI D&D doesn't even have gods. It has Immortals, but those are very specifically not gods. There are still human clerics, though. The other races have Keepers, which are basically normal people, but who control a mystic relic of power that lets them heal and keep away undead in a pretty big area. I actually like the Keepers much more than clerics.

BWR
2015-03-02, 11:33 AM
BECMI D&D doesn't even have gods. It has Immortals, but those are very specifically not gods. There are still human clerics, though. The other races have Keepers, which are basically normal people, but who control a mystic relic of power that lets them heal and keep away undead in a pretty big area. I actually like the Keepers much more than clerics.

What's in a name? They are powerful beings with worshippers, spheres of interest beyond their own well-being and who grant followers mystical powers and often have some form of organized religion based on them: sounds like gods to me.
There are also dwarf clerics in BECMI (Dwarves of Rockhome).

felinoel
2015-03-02, 12:25 PM
I am pretty sure that druids are divine casters and very few player druids take a deity other than nature that I've ever met.

Telok
2015-03-02, 01:29 PM
To answer the question in the thread title: Yes, but the phrase "By the power of my one eyed codpiece python I bless you with the holy liquids of healing." didn't go over well.

I am no longer allowed to play a D&D divine caster who does not worship a DM approved diety.

Talakeal
2015-03-02, 01:45 PM
I am pretty sure that druids are divine casters and very few player druids take a deity other than nature that I've ever met.

That was actually my direct inspiration for starting the thread. We were making characters for a new game and I was considering a druid until the Dm told me that in his game all druids are required to worship a specific nature deity and obey them and their clergy.

Also, I have played a druid before and although the Dm didnt require druids to worship a god the force of nature still forced me to obey a very narrow code of conduct and took away my powers until I attoned when "nature" decided I was acting too recklessly.

zinycor
2015-03-02, 02:08 PM
Also, I have played a druid before and although the Dm didnt require druids to worship a god the force of nature still forced me to obey a very narrow code of conduct and took away my powers until I attoned when "nature" decided I was acting too recklessly.

Isn't that always the case? Whenever i have played DnD or pathfinder druids had to play this, and it has been fun for everyone involved.

In your mind what would be the difference between a Wizard and a Cleric if not for the fact of the deity or concept that the cleric follows

Talakeal
2015-03-02, 02:18 PM
Isn't that always the case? Whenever i have played DnD or pathfinder druids had to play this, and it has been fun for everyone involved.

In your mind what would be the difference between a Wizard and a Cleric if not for the fact of the deity or concept that the cleric follows

The book says you lose your powers if you change to a prohibited alignment, cease to revere nature, or violate your oaths to not use metal weapons or teach outsiders the secret druid language.

Aside from the last one (which seems really weird and arbitrary. Why does "nature" care about a non-magical secret language?) these are actually big changes in character rather than simply punishing the druid for specific actions.

For example, I lost my powers one time for helping the rest of the party kill a warband of orcs, because the DM ruled that I was using my druidic powers to harm someone who wasn't threatening the environment. I didn't change alignment or cease to revere nature in that case, I just invoked the wrath of "nature" for a specific action it didn't approve of.


In your mind what would be the difference between a Wizard and a Cleric if not for the fact of the deity or concept that the cleric follows

That's a bit like asking what is the difference between a monk and a fighter isn't it? They are different classes, plain and simple; I am not sure I get what you asking.

BootStrapTommy
2015-03-02, 02:31 PM
That's a bit like asking what is the difference between a monk and a fighter isn't it? They are different classes, plain and simple; I am not sure I get what you asking. Pointing out that fundamental difference between arcane and divine casting is divine casting's "divine" source.

I can understand the grief. While I think clerics, favored souls, and paladins without gods are dumb, I've never even seen someone forced to play druids that way. Just seems dumb.

zinycor
2015-03-02, 02:44 PM
The book says you lose your powers if you change to a prohibited alignment, cease to revere nature, or violate your oaths to not use metal weapons or teach outsiders the secret druid language.

Aside from the last one (which seems really weird and arbitrary. Why does "nature" care about a non-magical secret language?) these are actually big changes in character rather than simply punishing the druid for specific actions.

For example, I lost my powers one time for helping the rest of the party kill a warband of orcs, because the DM ruled that I was using my druidic powers to harm someone who wasn't threatening the environment. I didn't change alignment or cease to revere nature in that case, I just invoked the wrath of "nature" for a specific action it didn't approve of.

I agree, that really is an exageration, but i think that acting according to certain nature gods may be a lot of fun. After all nature is very different depending on which aspect you are revering. A druid of thunder will be very different of a Druid of Rat. And that can be very rewarding, for me at least.




That's a bit like asking what is the difference between a monk and a fighter isn't it? They are different classes, plain and simple; I am not sure I get what you asking.


Yeah it is, the difference between a monk and a fighter is that the fighter is a soldier, a normal man who masters weapons and or tactics to win on the battlefield. A monk is someone who meditates and looks to find balance in the world and on himself.

Likewise, for me, a cleric is someone who has been blessed by some god (Or something similar) because of his devotion to that god, and a wizard is someone who researches and wants to find the big secrets of the world, which has allowed him to bend the rules of reality, on DnD, he would use an arcane power, long forgotten but that is appearing again.

If you remove the deity from the cleric, i don't think he would be interesting, no more than a healing bot, or a wizard with different spells, who doesn't need to find books to learn his spells.

Talakeal
2015-03-02, 03:20 PM
So why is the monk / fighter distinction able to remain interesting without a god getting into the mix but a philosopher cleric / wizard is not?

Kalmageddon
2015-03-02, 03:26 PM
I am pretty sure that druids are divine casters and very few player druids take a deity other than nature that I've ever met.


That was actually my direct inspiration for starting the thread. We were making characters for a new game and I was considering a druid until the Dm told me that in his game all druids are required to worship a specific nature deity and obey them and their clergy.

Also, I have played a druid before and although the Dm didnt require druids to worship a god the force of nature still forced me to obey a very narrow code of conduct and took away my powers until I attoned when "nature" decided I was acting too recklessly.

To be fair, that's a problem with how druids are portrayed, it's a bug, not a feature. It's a consequence of oversimplification and applying modern sensibilities where they have not reason to exist, namely the fact that someone living in a pseudo-medieval world would care at all about nature or the ecosystem when pollution was basically a non-issue and more often than not people are fighting against nature, for their own survival.
Druids are supposed to be just priests of a different kind of religion. The concept of the ecoterrorist druid that worships nature doesn't make any sense whatsoever unless nature is able to communicate clearly and it has something to offer to the druid. And if nature can do that, nature is a god under a different name.

zinycor
2015-03-02, 03:28 PM
So why is the monk / fighter distinction able to remain interesting without a god getting into the mix but a philosopher cleric / wizard is not?


Cause monks have never been about gods and cleric is always been about gods (Or some form or religion). That's why I ask you what is a Cleric for you, for me it's what I said, and getting rid of the gods would be boring for me since it's such an important piece of the cleric.

Now if you have a different interpretation of the cleric i would love to read of it, but I will say, that i quite enjoy clerics and their relationship with gods. The main thing I enjoy of Werewolf the apocalypse is that every werewolf is a cleric :smallbiggrin:.

zinycor
2015-03-02, 03:40 PM
To be fair, that's a problem with how druids are portrayed, it's a bug, not a feature. It's a consequence of oversimplification and applying modern sensibilities where they have not reason to exist, namely the fact that someone living in a pseudo-medieval world would care at all about nature or the ecosystem when pollution was basically a non-issue and more often than not people are fighting against nature, for their own survival.
Druids are supposed to be just priests of a different kind of religion. The concept of the ecoterrorist druid that worships nature doesn't make any sense whatsoever unless nature is able to communicate clearly and it has something to offer to the druid. And if nature can do that, nature is a god under a different name.

Totally agree with you, nature is in itself a god on DnD and similars. I would go further and declare than many aspects of nature could be seen as gods on their own.

BootStrapTommy
2015-03-02, 03:42 PM
Druids are supposed to be just priests of a different kind of religion. The concept of the ecoterrorist druid that worships nature doesn't make any sense whatsoever unless nature is able to communicate clearly and it has something to offer to the druid. And if nature can do that, nature is a god under a different name. More often than not druids are portrayed as hostile natives as opposed to ecoterrorists. The idea being they worship and protect not "nature" but a particular part of "nature" geographically located. Guardians of the forest, not treehuggers.

That being said, ecoterrorist druid is called a Druidic Avenger. They are a variant rule.

LibraryOgre
2015-03-02, 05:45 PM
More often than not druids are portrayed as hostile natives as opposed to ecoterrorists. The idea being they worship and protect not "nature" but a particular part of "nature" geographically located. Guardians of the forest, not treehuggers.

That being said, ecoterrorist druid is called a Druidic Avenger. They are a variant rule.

The concept of druid across D&D has undergone several metamorphoses. The AD&D 1e Druid had a distinct flavor of being a priest and important person in a somewhat barbarian tribe (since they had a Charisma requirement and could, per the PH, worship certain natural phenomenon). The 1e DMG clarified that they needed to follow a DM-approved deity, while 2e made them "priests of a specific mythos", worshiping a deity or group of deities appropriate to druidic types (in FR, they became specialty priests of certain deities, for example).

Milo v3
2015-03-02, 06:17 PM
Cause monks have never been about gods and cleric is always been about gods (Or some form or religion). That's why I ask you what is a Cleric for you, for me it's what I said, and getting rid of the gods would be boring for me since it's such an important piece of the cleric.

Monk are about religion though, it's specifically "a member of a religious community of men typically living under vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience." Being a monk is a religious thing. They follow their philosophies as a religion, so why can't a cleric do the same thing?

Talakeal
2015-03-02, 07:31 PM
Is something like a Jedi incomprehensible?

They are in tune with a spiritual force that encompasses human emotions and ethics and derive supernatural powers from this connection. Why can't a druid, paladin, ranger, or even a cleric have a similar relationship with a metaphysical energy source in a similar manner?

goto124
2015-03-02, 07:35 PM
Don't druids and maybe rangers already do that?

Coidzor
2015-03-02, 07:49 PM
Isn't that always the case? Whenever i have played DnD or pathfinder druids had to play this, and it has been fun for everyone involved.

Some of us have DMs who don't subscribe to very narrow-minded ideas about how the game should be played and characters should be run in any and all circumstances and settings. :smalltongue:


I agree, that really is an exageration, but i think that acting according to certain nature gods may be a lot of fun. After all nature is very different depending on which aspect you are revering. A druid of thunder will be very different of a Druid of Rat. And that can be very rewarding, for me at least.

Except that's not what was being described to you. :smalltongue:

Venerating a particular aspect of nature above others is one thing, being the whipping boy not only for a nature deity but also their entire hierarchy of clerics rather than at least having one's own druidical hierarchy or being left to one's own druidical recognizance underneath the deity is quite another.


The book says you lose your powers if you change to a prohibited alignment, cease to revere nature, or violate your oaths to not use metal weapons or teach outsiders the secret druid language.

Which book are Druids forbidden from using Scimitars in, again? :smalltongue: The only druidical issues with metal I'm aware of are the druidical issues with metal armor, even going back to AD&D, because Druids and Scimitars were a thing in AD&D before 3.0 came out.

In 3.0, for example, Scimitars were grandfathered in from AD&D and the abominable playtest druid for 3.0 fought with a scimitar as a sword and board melee combatant. As bad as they were at the playtest, they didn't make such a glaring mistake that they let a druid use a scimitar and not lose powers if a druid using a scimitar would have resulted in loss of powers.


Druids are proficient with the following weapons: club, dagger, dart, quarterstaff, scimitar, sickle, shortspear, sling, and spear. They are also proficient with all natural attacks (claw, bite, and so forth) of any form they assume with wild shape.

Druids are proficient with light and medium armor but are prohibited from wearing metal armor; thus, they may wear only padded, leather, or hide armor. (A druid may also wear wooden armor that has been altered by the ironwood spell so that it functions as though it were steel. See the ironwood spell description) Druids are proficient with shields (except tower shields) but must use only wooden ones.

A druid who wears prohibited armor or carries a prohibited shield is unable to cast druid spells or use any of her supernatural or spell-like class abilities while doing so and for 24 hours thereafter.

Weapons containing metal bolded.

Armor and Shield restrictions bolded and italicized.


Druids are proficient with the following weapons: club, dagger, dart, quarterstaff, scimitar, scythe, sickle, shortspear, sling, and spear. They are also proficient with all natural attacks (claw, bite, and so forth) of any form they assume with wild shape (see below).

Druids are proficient with light and medium armor but are prohibited from wearing metal armor; thus, they may wear only padded, leather, or hide armor. A druid may also wear wooden armor that has been altered by the ironwood spell so that it functions as though it were steel. Druids are proficient with shields (except tower shields) but must use only wooden ones.

A druid who wears prohibited armor or uses a prohibited shield is unable to cast druid spells or use any of her supernatural or spell-like class abilities while doing so and for 24 hours thereafter.

Basically identical to 3.5 except that Scythes are added to the list of weapons druids are proficient with by default and which also by default contain metal.


For example, I lost my powers one time for helping the rest of the party kill a warband of orcs, because the DM ruled that I was using my druidic powers to harm someone who wasn't threatening the environment. I didn't change alignment or cease to revere nature in that case, I just invoked the wrath of "nature" for a specific action it didn't approve of.

That's because that DM was terrible. :smalltongue:

zinycor
2015-03-02, 07:52 PM
Is something like a Jedi incomprehensible?

They are in tune with a spiritual force that encompasses human emotions and ethics and derive supernatural powers from this connection. Why can't a druid, paladin, ranger, or even a cleric have a similar relationship with a metaphysical energy source in a similar manner?

As far as I remember Jedis do go everywhere talking the force this... dark side that... Just like a Cleric does. As a jedi you must follow a very strict code of conduct, and if they go against the Jedi Order they will probably fall to the dark side. In fact Jedis have a very spicific set of answers for everything and long tradition which dictates what to do or believe in any situation.

But I must say that my Star wars lore is limited to the movies, so I may be very wrong on this. But my point on that is that jedis do behave as clerics, only that instead of there being lots of gods, with many ways to see the world and having a big net of relations between them, there are only to big forces, which are always antagonic.

Coidzor
2015-03-02, 08:07 PM
Is something like a Jedi incomprehensible?

They are in tune with a spiritual force that encompasses human emotions and ethics and derive supernatural powers from this connection. Why can't a druid, paladin, ranger, or even a cleric have a similar relationship with a metaphysical energy source in a similar manner?

*shrug* That's a question for that minority for whom every campaign setting and game is Forgotten Realms.

You'd still have to have some definition of that metaphysical energy source, though, because the nature of that metaphysical energy source and a character's relationship with it will determine their abilities in all of the games I've come across where there's supernatural powers resulting from a relationship with a metaphysical energy source.

Solaris
2015-03-02, 08:08 PM
Don't druids and maybe rangers already do that?

... Aand suddenly I like druids and rangers again.

Milo v3
2015-03-02, 08:24 PM
As far as I remember Jedis do go everywhere talking the force this... dark side that... Just like a Cleric does. As a jedi you must follow a very strict code of conduct, and if they go against the Jedi Order they will probably fall to the dark side. In fact Jedis have a very spicific set of answers for everything and long tradition which dictates what to do or believe in any situation.

They behave much more like monks than clerics, all that bolded stuff is perfectly fitting for monks as well. I mean, the force is vaguely based on Taoism to being with. Also, I don't think I've ever seen a jedi pray.

Talakeal
2015-03-02, 08:47 PM
As far as I remember Jedis do go everywhere talking the force this... dark side that... Just like a Cleric does. As a jedi you must follow a very strict code of conduct, and if they go against the Jedi Order they will probably fall to the dark side. In fact Jedis have a very spicific set of answers for everything and long tradition which dictates what to do or believe in any situation.

But I must say that my Star wars lore is limited to the movies, so I may be very wrong on this. But my point on that is that jedis do behave as clerics, only that instead of there being lots of gods, with many ways to see the world and having a big net of relations between them, there are only to big forces, which are always antagonic.

I would more or less see a cleric without a god like a Jedi. They venerate cosmic energy forces and need to keep their own personality inline with those forces to gain their powers, but they do not necessarily have to answer to a big guy in the sky or his mortal hierarchy.



Which book are Druids forbidden from using Scimitars in, again? :smalltongue: The only druidical issues with metal I'm aware of are the druidical issues with metal armor, even going back to AD&D, because Druids and Scimitars were a thing in AD&D before 3.0 came out.

In 3.0, for example, Scimitars were grandfathered in from AD&D and the abominable playtest druid for 3.0 fought with a scimitar as a sword and board melee combatant. As bad as they were at the playtest, they didn't make such a glaring mistake that they let a druid use a scimitar and not lose powers if a druid using a scimitar would have resulted in loss of powers.


It is an AD&D thing (which is the edition I was playing said druid in). They are allowed to use Scimitars and Sickles because their shape is a "sacred symbol of the moon" but other metal weapons are forbidden. The 2E Druid's Handbook has a whole chapter on the hows and whys of it and has rules for making traditionally metallic weapons out of wood, rock, and bone. But yes, 3.X did abandon the limitation for weapons and only applies it to armor.

Talakeal
2015-03-02, 08:48 PM
As far as I remember Jedis do go everywhere talking the force this... dark side that... Just like a Cleric does. As a jedi you must follow a very strict code of conduct, and if they go against the Jedi Order they will probably fall to the dark side. In fact Jedis have a very spicific set of answers for everything and long tradition which dictates what to do or believe in any situation.

But I must say that my Star wars lore is limited to the movies, so I may be very wrong on this. But my point on that is that jedis do behave as clerics, only that instead of there being lots of gods, with many ways to see the world and having a big net of relations between them, there are only to big forces, which are always antagonic.

I would more or less see a cleric (or any other divine caster) without a god like a Jedi. They venerate cosmic energy forces and need to keep their own personality inline with those forces to gain their powers, but they do not necessarily have to answer to a big guy in the sky or his mortal hierarchy.

Now, I am honestly not sure if I would allow a godless cleric in my game, it has never come up. But I have never questioned the default state for rangers, paladins, druids, or any other divine caster.



Which book are Druids forbidden from using Scimitars in, again? :smalltongue: The only druidical issues with metal I'm aware of are the druidical issues with metal armor, even going back to AD&D, because Druids and Scimitars were a thing in AD&D before 3.0 came out.

In 3.0, for example, Scimitars were grandfathered in from AD&D and the abominable playtest druid for 3.0 fought with a scimitar as a sword and board melee combatant. As bad as they were at the playtest, they didn't make such a glaring mistake that they let a druid use a scimitar and not lose powers if a druid using a scimitar would have resulted in loss of powers.


It is an AD&D thing (which is the edition I was playing said druid in). They are allowed to use Scimitars and Sickles because their shape is a "sacred symbol of the moon" but other metal weapons are forbidden. The 2E Druid's Handbook has a whole chapter on the hows and whys of it and has rules for making traditionally metallic weapons out of wood, rock, and bone. But yes, 3.X did abandon the limitation for weapons and only applies it to armor.

Marlowe
2015-03-02, 08:56 PM
Once had an NPC Cleric of Atheism.

"Grog have no truck with outdated conventions of anthromorphic Theism. Grog worship elemental forces the existence of what is readily proven by empirical observation."

Yes, he was a Half-Orc. He had Weather and Fire Domains I believe.

Anyway, I'm not sure why D&D writers are so keen to apply Classical Polytheism to every single possible culture. Or why there seems to be so many players that can't seem to imagine a faith of any other shape.

Raimun
2015-03-02, 08:56 PM
There was one game where I played a Cleric of a cause. It was pretty interesting. You're kind of on your own in the grand scheme of things but in the small scheme of things? You're a full caster. Who can bash some heads in. And has a bit more freedom.
I mean, it didn't feel restrictive. Sure, there were tenets he followed because it was a cause after all. Since I decided before the game what those tenets were, my characters was totally in line with them, in a near perfect harmony. It actually did feel like he was certain of his beliefs. His domains were Travel and War because I felt those would basically make him revere the life of a wandering warrior. Walking the earth and fighting. What a better way to find spiritual enlightenment?

... I suppose that is kind of like being a jedi? Sure, the jedi trust that the force provides for them, so it's not exactly like that but I do remember that one time my Cleric of a cause used the spell compedium spell of "Receive skill ranks/caster level (max 10) in any skill". I used that one for a Survival check in the wilds so that I could hunt for food because we were starving. He had a divine inspiration but he acted more like a warlike, non-evil jedi than a Cleric of a deity.

Of course, the way things work (at least in 3rd edition) is that the "gods" are just middlemen when it comes to supplying divine magical power. Otherwise, Clerics of a cause wouldn't be possible. Otherwise, paladins, rangers and druids would need to worship some grand Lawful Stupid dude or some elder hippy.

Still, I've played in games where all clerics needed to follow an actual deity and in some games where all characters, regardless of a class needed to have one. Any of these ways can work if it is consistent. I mean, D&D gods hardly ever, almost never, walk the earth or directly commune with Clerics... that is, unless Commune is cast. So, it's not like the game mechanics or the story suffer in any way.

Coidzor
2015-03-02, 11:01 PM
Anyway, I'm not sure why D&D writers are so keen to apply Classical Polytheism to every single possible culture. Or why there seems to be so many players that can't seem to imagine a faith of any other shape.

There's only so many Pholtuses you can have running around before your setting is about holy wars all the time is part of it, I think.


They behave much more like monks than clerics, all that bolded stuff is perfectly fitting for monks as well. I mean, the force is vaguely based on Taoism to being with. Also, I don't think I've ever seen a jedi pray.

Well, they meditate, I suppose.

Milo v3
2015-03-03, 01:06 AM
Well, they meditate, I suppose.

Meditating has nothing to do with praying. One is asking a higher being to help or guide you, while the other is trying to find answers within yourself.

Coidzor
2015-03-03, 01:18 AM
Meditating has nothing to do with praying. One is asking a higher being to help or guide you, while the other is trying to find answers within yourself.

Depending upon the author it can involve communing with the force itself, though. Or meditating on the will of the force.

And other similar things.

Marlowe
2015-03-03, 02:11 AM
There's only so many Pholtuses you can have running around before your setting is about holy wars all the time is part of it, I think.



That's just more "outdated anthromorphic theism", to quote Grog. Where are the fantasy Buddhists, Confucianists? Shintoists?

TheCountAlucard
2015-03-03, 06:23 AM
Where are the fantasy Buddhists, Confucianists? Shintoists?Exalted. :smalltongue:

It's also where all the ancestor-cults end up. :smallwink:

Yora
2015-03-03, 06:32 AM
That's just more "outdated anthromorphic theism", to quote Grog. Where are the fantasy Buddhists, Confucianists? Shintoists?

Dragon Age.

Thialfi
2015-03-03, 09:31 AM
In the Planescape setting, we actually had Athar priests. They are pretty much the atheist faction. The recognize that there are gods, they just deny their divinity. We had them getting their power from the astral plane itself. We give druids the option of just acquiring their power from nature or selecting one of the deities in the Faith & Avatars/Powers & Pantheons/Demi-Human Deities supplements.

commander panda
2015-03-03, 09:38 AM
there's a cleric in my current party who worships freedom.

LibraryOgre
2015-03-03, 12:37 PM
Monk are about religion though, it's specifically "a member of a religious community of men typically living under vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience." Being a monk is a religious thing. They follow their philosophies as a religion, so why can't a cleric do the same thing?

That's a real-world monk, not a D&D monk. A D&D monk has some roots in cinematic versions of Shao-lin monks... but equally draws on ninjas and have seldom been directly or exclusively associated with religion (i.e. there are a few religions that have class-monks, but monks are not themselves powered by divine energy in the D&D conception).

Telok
2015-03-03, 01:27 PM
My favorite ideal for a D&D cleric to venerate and get spells from is the ideal of killing people and taking their stuff. The murderhobo ideal.

What I think is important is to understand that the whole thing about divine power/spells is that it's completely setting dependent. Some settings require the divine to grant power, others give it for believing, and some are 'just because'. So all that's going on is differences between settings in different games.

I ran one D&D game where all divine powers were derived from sacrifice and faith to gods. Belief wasn't important, this was a more contractual agreement. The gods then ended up being a sort of rules sub-system that used a pool of expendable piety points. It was funny when someone asked how to kill a god. I asked him to find a way for his character to attack and kill the hit point system or the saving throw system. Never did figure out how that would work.

LibraryOgre
2015-03-03, 02:10 PM
I ran one D&D game where all divine powers were derived from sacrifice and faith to gods. Belief wasn't important, this was a more contractual agreement. The gods then ended up being a sort of rules sub-system that used a pool of expendable piety points. It was funny when someone asked how to kill a god. I asked him to find a way for his character to attack and kill the hit point system or the saving throw system. Never did figure out how that would work.

There was an alternate casting system for priests in the Spells and Magic supplement (2nd edition) that relied on you casting spells favorable to your deity to make them happen.

Solaris
2015-03-03, 02:29 PM
I ran one D&D game where all divine powers were derived from sacrifice and faith to gods. Belief wasn't important, this was a more contractual agreement. The gods then ended up being a sort of rules sub-system that used a pool of expendable piety points. It was funny when someone asked how to kill a god. I asked him to find a way for his character to attack and kill the hit point system or the saving throw system. Never did figure out how that would work.

Not even the old tried-and-true "Genocide of their worshipers" thing?

Telok
2015-03-03, 04:54 PM
Not even the old tried-and-true "Genocide of their worshipers" thing? The gods were part of the setting. Gravity does not require belief. The propagation of light through space does not require worship. Lungs and intestines don't need faith to exist.

In that setting the gods are. Sapient creatures amuse them, they have likes and dislikes, heroes are useful to them. But they were personified in the setting by game rules. So the act of 'kill a god' was the same as the act of 'kill the xp and level system' or 'kill the spellcasting rules'. Kiling all the monks doesn't make the monk class go away.

Milo v3
2015-03-03, 09:07 PM
That's a real-world monk, not a D&D monk. A D&D monk has some roots in cinematic versions of Shao-lin monks... but equally draws on ninjas and have seldom been directly or exclusively associated with religion (i.e. there are a few religions that have class-monks, but monks are not themselves powered by divine energy in the D&D conception).
They live in monasteries, meditate, have a giant focus on self-discipline, get power from their wisdom, go around wearing robes... sounds pretty religious to me. Not deity-based religion, a philosophy-based.

LibraryOgre
2015-03-03, 09:17 PM
They live in monasteries, meditate, have a giant focus on self-discipline, get power from their wisdom, go around wearing robes... sounds pretty religious to me. Not deity-based religion, a philosophy-based.

Others are racist Suel-supremacist spies and assassins. (http://www.canonfire.com/wiki/index.php?title=Scarlet_Brotherhood) They're not empowered by their philosophy directly; their philosophy leads them to power, more in line with how a wizard learns to cast spells, rather than being granted them like a spell-beggar.

You could classify psionicists as priests, by your criteria.

BootStrapTommy
2015-03-03, 09:24 PM
there's a cleric in my current party who worships freedom. Was he an American? Please tell me he was American?

Marlowe
2015-03-03, 10:04 PM
Joking aside. This business of making Divine Casters worship a specific, discrete, named, usually man-shaped "God" is essentially taking an iron-age mediterreanean model of "what religion looks like" and forcing it to apply to everyone, everywhere. Even though it's not an especially popular or successful model of among human cultures on earth.

We've got people in this thread accusing others of cheating for doing religion any other way, even though billions of people do it different IRL every day.

Shutting up now.

Valameer
2015-03-03, 10:28 PM
Have you ever played in a game that didn't require divine casters to follow a god?

Sure, all the time.

Every other class gets their powers from their own mastery of the universe, whether it's through arcane magic, or skills, or martial prowess, or commanding nature, or... songs. Why can't clerics simply be masters of positive (or negative) energy?

Plus, if we're talking about 3rd Edition D&D, the rule is right there in the PHB that it is possible to not follow a god.

Talakeal
2015-03-03, 10:59 PM
Sure, all the time.

Every other class gets their powers from their own mastery of the universe, whether it's through arcane magic, or skills, or martial prowess, or commanding nature, or... songs. Why can't clerics simply be masters of positive (or negative) energy?

Plus, if we're talking about 3rd Edition D&D, the rule is right there in the PHB that it is possible to not follow a god.

Sure it is; and the default assumption for paladins, rangers, and druids in ever edition is godless energy source according to the PHB.

I have still never seen a DM who didn't proclaim those rules to be excrement, tossed them out, and required them to worship a god for their powers anyway.

Valameer
2015-03-03, 11:12 PM
I have still never seen a DM who didn't proclaim those rules to be excrement, tossed them out, and required them to worship a god for their powers anyway.

That's really too bad. I don't know what else to say...

Do those DMs also insist that fighters can only use swords? Or bards must only play lutes... or some other ridiculous analogy. Unless they have a particular setting that they are hanging onto with an iron fist.

Really, you have my sympathy and support.

zinycor
2015-03-03, 11:29 PM
That's really too bad. I don't know what else to say...

Do those DMs also insist that fighters can only use swords? Or bards must only play lutes... or some other ridiculous analogy. Unless they have a particular setting that they are hanging onto with an iron fist.

Really, you have my sympathy and support.

Iwouldn't be so radical to say that. After all if the group is playing on any given setting then is normal to the DM to go ahead and say what are the rules on that setting. If the DM says that clerics get their powers from the gods and gods are the means of getting divine power, I don't think is such a big restriction as to say which weapon you must use or what instrument you must play.

It's not so much as restricting the players freedom as giving a coherent universe.

To use other ridiculous analogy: If you are playing a game on the Forgotten Realms you don't go and say that you just met Dr. Doom in Latveria in your backstory, or that the president of the United States commanded you to protect the forgotten realms.*


*Unless the Dm tells you that's ok

Forrestfire
2015-03-03, 11:53 PM
While I understand your point, the idea of someone from modern-day earth or the Marvel universe making their way to Toril through, say, the World Serpent Inn (since, in-canon, every possible reality can be found through there) to be quite interesting. Probably would be tons of fun to roleplay the culture shock and general getting-used-to-things. :smallbiggrin:

LibraryOgre
2015-03-04, 02:55 AM
Joking aside. This business of making Divine Casters worship a specific, discrete, named, usually man-shaped "God" is essentially taking an iron-age mediterreanean model of "what religion looks like" and forcing it to apply to everyone, everywhere. Even though it's not an especially popular or successful model of among human cultures on earth.

Interesting bit of argument, here... the Romans, in particular, tended to have their priests be responsible to the entire pantheon, with only specific priests (flamens) be bound by the strictures of a particular deity. So most of the colleges of pontiffs and augurs would hold ceremonies for whatever deity was available and largely live a normal life, while the flamen dialis (for example) was the special priest of Jupiter, and ringed round with restrictions (can't touch iron, has to wear special clothes, can't be too far from the city, etc.).

The supplement "On Hallowed Ground" introduced rules specifically for clerics devoted to a pantheon, though language in the 2e PH implies that you can have a priest of a pantheon.


Sure it is; and the default assumption for paladins, rangers, and druids in ever edition is godless energy source according to the PHB.

No? The 1e DMG is quite clear, for example, that clerics and druids must choose a campaign-specific deity. The 2e PH equivocates a bit, but comes down heavily on there being a deity behind it, though also says you can abstract it out to "there's a deity of good and that's who my good cleric worships."



To use other ridiculous analogy: If you are playing a game on the Forgotten Realms you don't go and say that you just met Dr. Doom in Latveria in your backstory, or that the president of the United States commanded you to protect the forgotten realms.

The President? No. But you might get that command from someone based on a half dollar coin... (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Waukeen#Creative_origins)

zinycor
2015-03-04, 10:08 AM
While I understand your point, the idea of someone from modern-day earth or the Marvel universe making their way to Toril through, say, the World Serpent Inn (since, in-canon, every possible reality can be found through there) to be quite interesting. Probably would be tons of fun to roleplay the culture shock and general getting-used-to-things. :smallbiggrin:

Oh, it would most certainly be an awesome experience.

Talakeal
2015-03-04, 02:11 PM
Interesting bit of argument, here... the Romans, in particular, tended to have their priests be responsible to the entire pantheon, with only specific priests (flamens) be bound by the strictures of a particular deity. So most of the colleges of pontiffs and augurs would hold ceremonies for whatever deity was available and largely live a normal life, while the flamen dialis (for example) was the special priest of Jupiter, and ringed round with restrictions (can't touch iron, has to wear special clothes, can't be too far from the city, etc.).

The supplement "On Hallowed Ground" introduced rules specifically for clerics devoted to a pantheon, though language in the 2e PH implies that you can have a priest of a pantheon.



No? The 1e DMG is quite clear, for example, that clerics and druids must choose a campaign-specific deity. The 2e PH equivocates a bit, but comes down heavily on there being a deity behind it, though also says you can abstract it out to "there's a deity of good and that's who my good cleric worships."



The President? No. But you might get that command from someone based on a half dollar coin... (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Waukeen#Creative_origins)

Man, thats the second time today that someone had to remind me that 1e druids and bards worked differently than other editions. Sorry, 1E was a bit before my time and though I have read the books I never actually played with them and thus my memory is a little fuzzy.

But I am not seeing anying in the 2e PHB that even implies druids get their powers from a specific god.

Necroticplague
2015-03-04, 02:30 PM
Keep in mind, not all divine caster are so clear-cut. For example, Ur-priests steal their magic from gods. Worshiping said gods wouldn't make much sense, even though they are unquestionably divine spellcasters.

Wardog
2015-03-04, 05:30 PM
Personally, I find the idea of a "cleric/priest of a philosophy", who can get magic spells simply from devotion to an Idea to be a bit weird (unless your setting is one where belief makes things real).

On the other hand, many settings have not merely multiple gods, but multiple pantheons, all of which are real, so it doesn't seem unreasonable that there will be a god or pantheon somewhere that grants whichever combination of domains and rules that the player wants. And if the combination chosen isn't inherently OP or disruptive (more than a default cleric), this "custom cleric of a custom god" shouldn't inherently be any more munchkiny than a vanilla one.

"I worship Thragnog, the orcish god of fire and travel. I must pray before a bonfire to get my spells, before setting out on a journey, and again when I arrive at my destination" seems more flavourful, and definitely less OP than "I worship Tyr. I use CoDzilla cheese to make me a better fighter than the fighter, and cast loads of spells as well".

BootStrapTommy
2015-03-04, 05:59 PM
Keep in mind, not all divine caster are so clear-cut. For example, Ur-priests steal their magic from gods. Worshiping said gods wouldn't make much sense, even though they are unquestionably divine spellcasters. They still get their spell casting from the gods. They just steal it and deny the gods' divinity. So...

LibraryOgre
2015-03-04, 06:15 PM
Man, thats the second time today that someone had to remind me that 1e druids and bards worked differently than other editions. Sorry, 1E was a bit before my time and though I have read the books I never actually played with them and thus my memory is a little fuzzy.

But I am not seeing anying in the 2e PHB that even implies druids get their powers from a specific god.

It's not a clear line, but druids are "Priests of Specific Mythoi", with Mythoi being described as including the deities of a culture in the front of the black cover RPGs. When you get into the magic section about priest magic in the PH, though, it talks extensively about priests and their deities, without really referencing any other concept.

Dimers
2015-03-04, 07:09 PM
Sure it is; and the default assumption for paladins, rangers, and druids in ever edition is godless energy source according to the PHB.

I have still never seen a DM who didn't proclaim those rules to be excrement, tossed them out, and required them to worship a god for their powers anyway.

That's because everyone you play with is Utter Pants, my good sir, occasionally with a side order of Psychotic or Unfit To Interact With Other Humans. You've proven it beyond a reasonable doubt over the span of many threads.

Several people in this thread have said "When I GM, that rule goes out the window," quite possibly including some who are involved in PbP games on this forum right now. I know that doesn't help you much in achieving that sort of game yourself, but have hope and know the truth: it does happen.

Necroticplague
2015-03-04, 07:32 PM
They still get their spell casting from the gods. They just steal it and deny the gods' divinity. So...

So? This thread is about worshiping the gods for power, which the ur-priest definitely doesn't do. There's a big difference between asking someone for handouts, and looting their pockets. Clerics of a god do the former, ur-priests do the latter.

And presumably, clerics of causes have a kickstarter or a gofundme to foot the bill.

goto124
2015-03-04, 08:52 PM
And if the combination chosen isn't inherently OP or disruptive (more than a default cleric), this "custom cleric of a custom god" shouldn't inherently be any more munchkiny than a vanilla one.

"I worship Thragnog, the orcish god of fire and travel. I must pray before a bonfire to get my spells, before setting out on a journey, and again when I arrive at my destination" seems more flavourful, and definitely less OP than "I worship Tyr. I use CoDzilla cheese to make me a better fighter than the fighter, and cast loads of spells as well".

There's the assumption that if you don't stick to your RP, you're being a munchkin. I understand some people have experiences that pretty much tell them this is true, but I feel roleplay and optimization should be seperated.

I also feel that no one should be punished for bad roleplay, as long as that player is not being disruptive. Look at this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?401790-Creative-ways-to-penalize-a-Druid-who-won-t-play-as-a-druid). Look at its name. If he doesn't RP, that's him. Since he doesn't reduce other people's fun, he should be allowed to play the way he likes. If he is being a jerk or otherwise making the game less fun for others, that is a seperate OOC issue, nothing to do with RP.

A player makes an optimized priest and fluff-wise gets his power from the cosmic plane. He doesn't overshadow everyone else or blast through encounters with extreme power, he's cooperative, he works well with the party, he isn't a jerk, the group has great fun. Is that impossible, or something so rare that you should stop him during character generation as soon as he says 'I get power from the cosmic plane'?

I see an argument for 'does not fit the setting'. Then it's a matter of discussing it with the player, and coming up with a solution. I'm curious as to what sort of solutions people usually figure out in these cases.

Coidzor
2015-03-04, 09:11 PM
I see an argument for 'does not fit the setting'. Then it's a matter of discussing it with the player, and coming up with a solution. I'm curious as to what sort of solutions people usually figure out in these cases.

Seems like aside form the odd GM who hadn't considered it at all and doesn't already have a massive load of bias one way or the other, it'd already be settled, either they'll never allow anything like that, ever, ever, ever, or they're already fine with that sort of thing so little or no tweaking would be necessary.


And presumably, clerics of causes have a kickstarter or a gofundme to foot the bill.

Or their middlemen with the Divine don't have personalities.

BootStrapTommy
2015-03-04, 09:25 PM
So? This thread is about worshiping the gods for power, which the ur-priest definitely doesn't do. There's a big difference between asking someone for handouts, and looting their pockets. Clerics of a god do the former, ur-priests do the latter.

And presumably, clerics of causes have a kickstarter or a gofundme to foot the bill. Regardless of how the spells were obtained, however, their origin is still a deity. Or group of them.

goto124
2015-03-04, 09:57 PM
I'm looking back at this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?401790-Creative-ways-to-penalize-a-Druid-who-won-t-play-as-a-druid), and one possible reason for the player/DM conflict is that in the DM's setting, Druids much act a certain way (much like how in some settings, clerics much worship a god and actually follow a code), but then somehow the player isn't following. We don't know what really happened until OP replies, such as what exactly the player did, or whether or not the player is aware of the campaign's Druid RP restrictions.

But it did make me wonder- how do you deal with such a situation? OP's complain sounds familar- the player in his view wants the skills of a Druid but not its RP. The same was said for some cleric players.

Jacob.Tyr
2015-03-04, 10:17 PM
I would let a player refluff a codzilla as something Saiyan like if they really cared to. Classes are great, as they give you archetypes and discrete abilities that fit them, but I'm not about to force someone into an archetype of any sort if they really want x set of abilities with y fluff. I saw someone once write up a Barbarian who claimed to be a wizard with a very limited spell list. In my games, that is entirely kosher.

I will admit that the game I'm running now is the first actually set in one of the major settings that I've ever participated in, though. I've been gaming for maybe 15 years, and it just never really seemed worth it to buy a giant book that we'd all have to read and understand for our characters to make sense. Dawn of Worlds is where it's at.

cobaltstarfire
2015-03-05, 12:37 AM
The character I'm currently playing does not follow a god, but gets divine power from one.

Originally she was press-ganged into "serving" a god, but the DM decided to tweak it in such a way that basically she's now being empowered by a the true incarnation of that god to smash charlatans like the ones who press-ganged her. (most "divine" magic in the world is fake, or arcane magic being used in a clever way to take advantage of good people). She comes from a godless land and her first couple of experiences with religion have made her really dislike/distrust it. It's quite funny since she's unwittingly acting as a gods hammer.

I don't think my DM really subscribes to the idea of characters (NPC's or PC's) getting divine power without somehow getting it from a god, whether the recipient is aware or not. But he seems quite happy to work it out so that the character doesn't have to directly follow or worship any particular god to have cleric powers.

LibraryOgre
2015-03-05, 11:59 AM
The character I'm currently playing does not follow a god, but gets divine power from one.

I once played an elven Priest of Light in Palladium Fantasy who believed she was a human Mercenary Fighter... all of her magic came from the fact that her father was Palladium Fantasy's Odin expy, but she didn't know that.

cobaltstarfire
2015-03-05, 03:30 PM
I once played an elven Priest of Light in Palladium Fantasy who believed she was a human Mercenary Fighter... all of her magic came from the fact that her father was Palladium Fantasy's Odin expy, but she didn't know that.

That must have been an interesting discovery if/when she made it.

LibraryOgre
2015-03-05, 03:43 PM
That must have been an interesting discovery if/when she made it.

I can't recall if she did; I think she wound up dying as we held off an army from a shrine (of some completely unrelated deity).